AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > July > 22 > Entry
Should journalists restrain their reporting in the interest of national security?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
I recently re-watched the largely true-to-life movie Thirteen Days, about the JFK White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I was freshly struck by how close we came to global holocaust, and how overwhelming was the responsibility that rested on the few exhausted insiders that knew the whole story. I realized: in the age of terrorism, this must be what every President feels like… every day in office.
I was also struck that decades ago, Presidents didn’t have so much worry about a few American papers actively fighting for the other side. In 1962, when word of the crisis was about to leak, President Kennedy actually told the New York Times of the coming blockade, but requested a 24-hour hold on the story, since advance warning would eliminate the only non-violent solution. Washington bureau chief Scotty Reston agreed to the “reasonable request,” because it clearly protected Americans.
It is tragically ironic that today’s New York Times appears to revel in endangering Americans, by revealing details of secret terrorism-fighting programs. The most recent example, of course, was the Times’ decision to expose (and thus emasculate) an essential, legal program used for tracking terrorist finances.
That story signaled the end of our ability to track and stop the plots of certain high-level terrorist financiers. How will the Times feel if those financiers end up killing 3,000 more Americans because their reporting allowed them to evade capture? As conservative media watchdog Brent Bozell said in an interview, “When you consider that leaders across the ideological divide told the New York Times that printing the story would do grave harm to our nation, one has to conclude that the paper did this knowing and not caring about the damage it was doing to the country.”
Journalists have always had a serious responsibility to the “public interest,” but today, that means more than “the public’s right to know.” Sometimes, the public interest goes far deeper and requires a humility and self-restraint that seems sorely lacking in a few media outlets that should be setting the standard. The vast majority of news organizations understand wise restraint; I pray more Americans won’t have to die before the others see the light.
Rebuttal
Shaunti paints quite the seditious picture. It is meant to sway us with emotional, patriotic pleas, much like our current administration does when it points fingers at the press and diverts attention away from government’s own misdeeds.
Yes. This is an issue about national security: the security of individual privacy our government carelessly jeopardized when it launched a banking surveillance program without filing the proper paperwork, a step meant to protect citizens from government abuse.
But this fact is sadly overlooked. And the spin that this was a secret terrorist tracking program rendered useless by The New York Times is astonishing.
“Subsequent reporting by Washington Post’s Walter Pincus and others has demonstrated that there was nothing ‘secret’ about this project. The administration had made comments about their bank account tracking initiatives for the last several years,” explains Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
“News organizations take the responsibility to protect national security very seriously and only publish stories that do not place U.S. interests at imminent risk.”
News organizations also check governmental abuses and protect American citizens. A government that ignores the constitutional rights of its own citizens can’t simply cry wolf and spin a tale about specious national security concerns.
“Any terrorist with even the slightest grasp of how money moves around the world would have to know his or her transactions were being tracked,” adds Dalglish. “I think the New York Times was singled out for criticism because the administration is still ticked off about the story on warrantless eavesdropping from last December.”
And if Dalglish is wrong, if our administration wasn’t lashing out, we’re still left with the elephant in the room: Why could a reporter breach national security? This speaks volumes about our lack of it. So perhaps national security was never really the issue.
Because if it was an issue, our government could have blocked its publication, reported Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune. It was within their legal right to stop its publication. But it’s easier hold the line and insist that any questioning of the administration’s tactics in its war on terrorism means the questioner is unpatriotic at least, and treasonous at worst.
.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By Mamoru of Canton
July 24, 2006 07:49 AM | Link to this
It has been pointed out that this is not a war because the average American is not making any sacrifices. I disagree, Americans (not all, but including this one) are turning the other eye when it comes to the Right of Privacy.
A sacrifice need not be material in order to make
Should journalists restrain their reporting in the interest of national security?
To me, during a time of war, it boils down to this. Dose the Public’s Right to Know, out weigh, the The Public’s Right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
In a time of war, where we have enemies with in, I will have to say no.
One innocent life lost, to score the big story, is one life too many.
Congress complains that they are never told anything, yet we have Congress members that leak top secret information. Thats why Congress was cut off right after the beginning of the war.
If we were not at war I would have to agree with Diane, seeing that our country has enemies with in working to cause grievous injury to my family, friends, neighbor, and country man. The press needs to sit back and let this war be fought out to its conclusion.
Mamoru of Canton
By Will Jones
July 24, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
“Restrain their reporting?”
“The elephant in the room,” of which MSM’s reporters are restrained to the point of moronic and treasonous obliviousness, is the incontrovertible, and easily obtained, fact that 9-11 was committed by Bush et al.
“New Pearl Harbor,” by PhD Emeritus Professor David Ray Griffin breaks it down sedulously…or if one wishes to stick to the internet and save the few dollars for the book one can go here
to read the following official government 1st person witness to Cheney’s given order to “stand down” to allow the obvious missile to hit the Pentagon as the “David Copperfield” jet plane was seconds later witnessed flying over Capitol Hill.
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” Well, at the time I didn’t know what all that meant. And —
MR. HAMILTON: The flight you’re referring to is the —
MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.
MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.
Additionally one motivated by intelligent patriotism or spiritual righteousness might take an hour and twenty-one minutes to watch “Loose Change 2nd Edition” by clicking ]here](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=Loose+Change+second+edition).
The only issue, besides adjudicating the overt treason that has once more lead us to false war, is the appropriate “regard” The People should adopt for the “publishers” “employing” such incompetents as reporters.
By Archie
July 24, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
“It is tragically ironic that today’s New York Times appears to revel in endangering Americans, by revealing details of secret terrorism-fighting programs. The most recent example, of course, was the Times’ decision to expose (and thus emasculate) an essential, legal program used for tracking terrorist finances.”
Shanti has gone back to being a ditto-head for the Bush administration and she has suspended her good sense. If a reporter has secret information then the information is not secret. Diane is right that the media has to let Americans know when their privacy rights are being violated. Whoever leaked this information about the program is who the administration should have a problem with but then it would be like pointing the finger back at the administration.
By GOB
July 24, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
If the government is doing things that are illegal or unconstitutional in any way, then the press not only should tell the public, I would say they have an obligation to do so.
There are instances in which the press should be mindful of what it is reporting, but not if the rights of law-abiding citizens are being trampled.
By Mara
July 24, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
It depends on what kind of reporting we’re talking about.
IMO they have an ethical duty to report on actions by the government that a reasonable person would construe as…well…shady, if not outright illegal. Considering this administrations propensity for secrecy and it’s impatience with conforming to the law as it’s written…I think that without the “free press” we-the-people would have absolutely no idea that our government was shaving the edges from our civil rights. The Bushies have clearly dispensed with the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” and habeus corpus protections, not to mention their assault on my right to be secure in be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable (and un-warrented) searches and seizures. When my government is determined to abrogate the laws and protections that help make this country as great as it is…dam right that journalists should shout it from the front page, war or no. After all, if we allow the dismantling of the Bill-of-Right and Constitutional checks-an-balances…then what exactly would we be protecting? Certainly not the America that I grew up in.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
Was it actually news that there was a US government program tracking finances? The terrorists sure knew it, before the NYTimes story. So it is really more about this administration’s need to control all disseminated information/spin, that is more what the uproar over the NYTimes ‘news’ article was all about.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
Good movie though, Thirteen Days.
By Kyle
July 24, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
“If a reporter has secret information then the information is not secret. Diane is right that the media has to let Americans know when their privacy rights are being violated. Whoever leaked this information about the program is who the administration should have a problem with but then it would be like pointing the finger back at the administration.”
-Archie…so your saying that as long as a reporter can get thier hands on the information then they have no obligation to consider national security? true, if a reporter has the information then its technically not “secret” - but it certianly can still be sensitive information that can have a significant effect on the gov’ts ability to protect the country. the administration should find and punish whoever leaked this information, but i don’t think the reporter get a free pass just because the info was leaked.
“If the government is doing things that are illegal or unconstitutional in any way, then the press not only should tell the public, I would say they have an obligation to do so.”
-GOB…with respect to the Times story about the tracking of finances, the story didn’t allege anything illegal or unconstitutional was taking place. in fact, right after 9/11 the Times ran a story blaming the Bush administration for not have a program in place to track the terrorists finances - it was only when they discovered that the administration did have such a program that they decided it wasn’t a good idea. this story wasn’t to keep the gov’t in check or protect peoples rights. it was an attempt portray the administration in a negative light, regardless of the consequences.
By Brian Curtis
July 24, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
It’s typical of the current far right (and Shaunti, their spokesmodel) to try to couch everything in emotional and faux-patriotic terms when logic fails, i.e., “Reporting on what the government does is treason… the press is siding with the enemies of America,” and so on.
But Diane has the right of it. The greatest danger to our freedoms is never external enemies like terrorists; it’s letting our own government get away without public scrutiny and accountability.
The purpose of the press is to let the public know what our government is up to; journalistic ethics come into play when revealing specific information might endanger American lives or national security, and there’s a long history of cases and hearings dealing with how to walk that fine line.
But so far, the adminstration has made no attempt to censure or charge the Times for its story, or to stop its publishing. Why? Because they did nothing wrong. Instead, knowing they have no legal recourse, the White House response has been to unleash its pet media hacks to cry “treason” and discourage any further attempts at actual reporting.
“The press needs to sit back and let the government ‘do its job’?” HE-LL NO. The press is on the side of truth, and if the government is inconvenienced by that—-well, whose fault is that? It’s the attempt to suppress journalism that’s the REAL treason here.
The current Republican argument is that
Anything the Bush administration does “in a time of war” is, by definition, in the public interest;
Therefore, anyone who questions or tries to hold the administration accountable for its acts is “working for the enemy;” so,
Do your patriotic duty and stop asking questions. At least until the current emergency is over.
Unfortunately, Americans are smarter than that; we’re not falling for this garbage any more. Silence is never in the public interest, and Mamoru is 100% wrong: our right to know is FAR more important than our safety, for the same reason we send soldier to fight and die for our freedoms.
Because the principles of democracy are more valuable than our very lives. If you meet any right-wing nutjob who disagrees with THAT core belief, then you’ll know you’re talking to a treasonous coward… and they’re a much bigger threat to America than accurate journalism OR hijackers could ever be.
By Kyle
July 24, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
“Was it actually news that there was a US government program tracking finances? The terrorists sure knew it, before the NYTimes story.”
-Chilao…it wasn’t news that the government had a program in place in an attempt to track terrorists finances. what was news was the extent of cooperation the u.s. was recieving from banks and other countries around the world - that is the info that was exposed by the nyt article. as a result of the article, terrorists now know exactly how far of a reach the program had - and i say had, b/c after this story came to light several banks and countries discontinued thier cooperation with the u.s.
By GOB
July 24, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Kyle - Like Chilao said, who didnt know this was already happening? After 9/11, they administration was constantly talking about how they were freezing assets of one group or another because they were suspected of either being terrorist, or supporting them. That sort of program would be difficult to pull off without tracking their finances.
My comments were in more general terms, but at the same time, like Mara said, the current administration has set themselves up for this sort of treatment in the press. If they werent so secrative about just about all of their programs, they might not look like they had so much to hide, which as we are finding out, is quite a lot.
By Mara
July 24, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Kyle - the administration should find and punish whoever leaked this information, but i don’t think the reporter get a free pass just because the info was leaked
what do you think about the administration “leaking” sensitive information which they have secretly declassified in order to stay just barely on the side of legality?
By The72John
July 24, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
My comments were in more general terms, but at the same time, like Mara said, the current administration has set themselves up for this sort of treatment in the press. If they werent so secrative about just about all of their programs, they might not look like they had so much to hide, which as we are finding out, is quite a lot.
This, along with Brian Curtis, pretty much sums it up as far as I’m concerned. The press is absolutely responsible for keeping our leaders accountable to the public. Every story that is critical of the Bush Misadministration is immediately attacked by the right-wing propaganda machine as unpatriotic, seditious, and treasonous. We’ve even gone so far as to make non-binding referendums attacking journalists for doing the very thing the Founding Fathers intended for them to do.
Unfortunately, the Islamic extremists may have accomplished their goals more completely than they realized. Every month that goes by, this country looks less and less like the great nation it should be, and looks more and more like the kind of nation they would want it to be.
Just as a sidebar, any money wire transaction over $10,000 is reported to the government as a matter of course. Anyone with the knowledge and access required to move large amounts of money around would know that transactions are already subject to scrutiny. Also, the editor of the Times has stated many times that he kills any story that he believes truly represents a danger to US forces or citizens, even though those stories may represent front-page material.
But hey - we don’t have to believe that, do we. Why should we believe that the editor-in-chief of the most reputable newspaper in the US and one of the most reputable in the English-speaking world would be anything other than a partisan hack? Oh right, ‘cause it’s easier to dismiss unpleasant truths with claims of “the liberal media”.
By Mara
July 24, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Because the principles of democracy are more valuable than our very lives
Well said Brian.
Kyle - this story wasn’t to keep the gov’t in check or protect peoples rights
And you know this how? When any entity goes trawling through huge databases, how do you know whether or not rights are being violated? After all, according to the original article “Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.” Rifling through my financial information without cause to suspect me of any wrongdoing…what journalist worth his salt wouldn’t wonder if that was the sum of the program?
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
And this from today’s AJC:
“President Bush’s penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report being released today in Washington. The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws. The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds”
Trusting one’s government is difficult at best, but this Administration raises the bar for maintaining our trust. Their actions give the impression that they approach our laws and Constitutional protections as suggestions. I recognize that in times of war things do need to operate a bit differently, but we’re not technically at war since only Congress can declare one and second the administration chooses to do their own thing (example…not going to the special court for warrants (even after the fact) to spy on phone calls, etc.
I think the criticism of the NY Times is a red herring or attempt to discredit them through the usual name calling tactics (“Unpatriotic”,”UnAmerican”, etc). Financial tracking in today’s electronic banking world is a requirement to settle items and create audits for accounting purposes. It’s not rocket science to realize that it’s easy to figure out where the money went.
By Jack
July 24, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Members of the media are vulture scum. If it bleeds, it leads. “Tell me Mr. Jones, thoughts were going through your head when you found out your wife was bruatlly raped and murdered?” Typical vulture scum.
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
any money wire transaction over $10,000 Actually it’s ANY deposit transaction over $10K. The only way to circumvent the system is to work solely in cash.
Here, here to BC for the principles of democracy are more valuable than our very lives What is frightening is that in some cases our leaders almost seem to be Manchurian candidates seeing as how they are slowing becoming more like the totalitarian regimes they claim to hate.
Osama threatened to bleed us dry and the Islamic terrorists are doing that quite successfully by continuing to foment unrest in the world which is keeping oil prices high. Money is flowing into the reason like water over Niagra Falls. And our economy is starting to feel the affects of the increases. Prices are rising across the board due to increased transportation costs. That combined with the increased cost of fuel could threaten to push us into recession. We’re closer than most people realize especially given the amount of debt most people are carrying. Interest rates are being raised to stem inflationary fears, but the rising rates are hitting the same Americans who are seeing prices rise in the consumer markets.
By GOB
July 24, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Members of the media are vulture scum. If it bleeds, it leads. “Tell me Mr. Jones, thoughts were going through your head when you found out your wife was bruatlly raped and murdered?” Typical vulture scum.
Yeah, we should just get rid of all of them. I mean, we do have Tony Snow telling us everything we really need to know everyday…
By The72John
July 24, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Members of the media are vulture scum. If it bleeds, it leads. “Tell me Mr. Jones, thoughts were going through your head when you found out your wife was bruatlly raped and murdered?” Typical vulture scum.
You aren’t paying attention to the real journalists, then. Either that or the right-wing anti-journalism brainwashing has worked on you. Far more easy to manipulate you if immediately distrust the traditional source of challenging information.
We aren’t talking about TV News crews or tabloid reporters. REAL journalists don’t ask idiotic questions like your example above. There are actually many excellent, reputable papers out there that wouldn’t dream of sullying their duty with such garbage. But hey - once again, it’s easier to believe the “liberal media” or “vulture scum” nonsense that it is to deal with complex issues.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
any money wire transaction over $10,000 Actually it’s ANY deposit transaction over $10K. The only way to circumvent the system is to work solely in cash.
Yeah, yeah - sorry, my company deals in transfers of money and wire transactions, so I didn’t realize that deposits were also subject to the same reporting. :-)
By lozen
July 24, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
As usual Brian Curtis gets to the heart of this matter. I applaud those reporters who really do their job under the threat of retaliation they face right now.
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
don’t apologize to me. I simply wanted to make sure folks were aware that the reporting goes beyond wires.
my company deals in transfers of money and wire transactions You might be using my product lines if you initiate or upload wire batches to your bank through the web.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
I worked in banking/IT for four years, it is actually a Summation of all account activity for someone’s NAME,(regardless of the number of related accounts) so eight $2,000 transactions, for example, would trip to over $10,000 and it would be reviewed/questioned by an internal bank auditor, for potential reporting.
72John - I almost could not put The Handmaid’s Tale down, completed at least 2/3 over the weekend. Glad I saw the movie first, however.
lozen - I found a web-site that listed the EndofDays series. MAY check out later, desert-dweller doomsday books not exactly my thing. LOL
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
sounds like a Bahbah Waltas: “As you saw your kid swept away by the over-flowing river, being pulled under, drowning, tell us, how did that make you feel.”
By The72John
July 24, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
72John - I almost could not put The Handmaid’s Tale down, completed at least 2/3 over the weekend. Glad I saw the movie first, however.
Read Alias, Grace. It is my favorite Atwood.
By Archie
July 24, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
Kyle I can’t respond too much today but I will say this if a reporter can get his/her hands on certain information then that information is not secure. I don’t think reporters should tell the world exactly where our soldiers are located and all the strategy that those soldiers will use but how would a reporter get such information? Also why should we trust this administration with financial records? We have already seen that this administration or politicians in general will use information to attack their detractors, so yes reporters need to seek and report the information that they receive. I do have a problem with reporters wanting to know exactly where our soldiers are located on the battleground but then what official would divulge such information? No matter how you cut it you have to question the person who divulged the information.
The topic question is not one for a yes or no answer. So my answer is sometimes a reporter should restrain her reporting. A better question is how do reporters get such sensitive information?
By renee
July 24, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Hi everyone!!!
I still had comments from last weeks subject that I did not get to post…but I’m moving on.
I think GOB said it best at 9:12. While remaining mindful of certain issues, other issues they definitely have a duty to report.
On a sidebar, is this Kaka thing a commercial or a subliminal message??? lol
By The72John
July 24, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
I don’t think reporters should tell the world exactly where our soldiers are located and all the strategy that those soldiers will use but how would a reporter get such information?
Very true. HEY, AL-QAEDA GUY - there’s a SOLDIER BEHIND YOU! would be an inappropriate use of the power of the press, and any journalist worth his salt KNOWS that. But the Bush Bullies know that if they invoke fears of terrorist attacks and patriotic fervor whenever they press dares to make them accountable, that the oh-so-common man will jump on the bandwagon faster than you can say Woodward and Bernstein.
On a sidebar, is this Kaka thing a commercial or a subliminal message??? lol
Bot-spammer. Starting to get REALLY annoying.
Anyone know why they cut us off last week, btw?
By lozen
July 24, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Chileo, glad to hear you’re reading A Handmaid’s Tale. It is one of the most chilling novels I’ve ever read. She’s going to be on Bill Moyers’ Faith and Reason which airs on Channel 8 Sunday at 3:00pm. (I think someone was determined to bury Moyers’ show this time!) And I just got an email (is this synchronicity or what?): she’ll be speaking at Emory on Sept. 7 and signing her new book.
By lozen
July 24, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
I don’t know why the blog went down last week 72John. I emailed them, finally, on Friday and within hours it was up again. Surely I’m not the only one though. I know there are several of you just as addicted as I am!
By lozen
July 24, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
What was the name of the book written by a Washington security insider about how the administration used 9/11 as the excuse to start their long-wanted and long-planned war on Saddam?
By Mara
July 24, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
HA! lozen I reported in on Thursday (though they didn’t get back to me til Friday).
Their IT guy said that he had no problem getting the site and “post” box to come up. I asked him if had tried a test post, which of course he hadn’t…couple hours later it was fixed. (shrug) Now about this Kaka-bot…surely they could be doing something about that annoyance.
By lozen
July 24, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
You would think, Mara….
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Lozen - thanks for the heads up, I will watch or tape. I got some of Ann Provoost a few weeks ago (on F&R), but have not read her stuff, she just had some intawestin’ stuff to say. it was about Noah’s ark.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
even when you got that ‘posts not allowed’ message, and then tried again, from the error page, it still errored. Oh, well, mine got lost, something about ‘people must be outta town’, a polite ‘out to lunch’ euphemism. LOL
it is AnnE Provoost, not Ann.
By lozen
July 24, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
I’m answering my own question with Amazon. There are so many books about the Bush administation and their mistakes in foreign policy and national security. This is just one:
Imperial Hubris A career CIA officer claims in a new book that America is losing the war on terror, in part because of the invasion of Iraq, which, he says, distracted the United States from the war against terrorism and further fueled al-Qaida’s struggle against the United States. The author, who writes as “Anonymous,” is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and still works for the intelligence agency, which allowed him to publish the book after reviewing it for classified information.
In an interview with NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, he calls the U.S. war in Iraq a dream come true for Osama bin Laden, saying, “Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never thought he’d get.” By invading a country that’s regarded as the second holiest place in Islam, he asserts, the Bush administration inadvertently validated bin Laden’s assertions that the United States intends a holy war against Muslims.
In his book, titled “Imperial Hubris,” he calls the Iraq invasion “an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat,” arguing against the concept of pre-emptive war put forward by President Bush as justification for the Iraq war.
By lozen
July 24, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
I missed the Noah’s Ark thing Chileo. I’m usually out in the middle of the day on Sundays and it’s hard to catch that show. I should tape it. Did she give the exact dimensions of the ark? Like Chuck?
By Amelia
July 24, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
Prior to the Bush administration I would have almost agreed that journalist should refrain from disclosing issues of national security. But this administration classifies EVERYTHING as national security and has abused the civil liberties and violated the privacy of millions for very murky and questionable purposes. In the case of this administration the more flashlights the better. It seems that in this administration there are cockroaches in every corner. I am not sure if the Cheney energy meeting was kept secret due to nat. sec. reasons or executive privelege, but if there is a change of majority in the congress or the senate, this issue should be revisited, oil executives questioned under oath, the whole nine yards. That minutes of that meeting will probably tell us that invading Iraq was going to happen well before 9/11. That is Cheney fought so hard to keep it secret.
By kimberly
July 24, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Shaunti sez: Journalists have always had a serious responsibility to the “public interest,” but today, that means more than “the public’s right to know.”
Will somebody please go pull this clueless woman’s “journalist” card? Geez. Real journalists are few and far between these days. They are supposed to (1) Find and report FACTS, and (2) in the course of doing so, determine the difference between news, propaganda, gossip, and bullsh-t. Reporting what your government is doing with your money in your name is the most important thing she could do, but noooooooooo… not Shaunti!
BTW, can anyone access the archives to see what Shaunti wrote back in the late 90’s about the infamous stain on the blue dress? I’m still wondering why that was any of my business, but it must have been, right? I mean, no detail was left unreported! Whores.
By Amelia
July 24, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
Ben Franklin: “He who trades freedom for security deserves neither”.
Thomas Jefferson: “Given the choice between government and a free press, choose the press”.
By kimberly
July 24, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
Today’s American news media:
By lozen
July 24, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
If it were one democrat questioning the Bush administration that would be one thing. It is all kinds of insiders who question the Bush administration.
“It was in early 2004, the beginning of President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign, that Lawrence Wilkerson first printed out a letter saying he wanted to quit as chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell.
“In essence it said, ‘Dear Mr. President, I find myself at variance with a majority of your foreign policies and even your domestic policies and therefore I respectfully submit my resignation,”’ Wilkerson recalled recently. But the letter remained in a desk drawer for the rest of Bush’s first term.
Nearly two years later, Wilkerson, a 60-year-old retired U.S. Army colonel, has finally completed his journey from insider to apostate.
Alone among those who surrounded Powell in the first term, he is speaking out critically, assailing the president as amateurish, especially compared to the first President Bush, and describing the administration as secretive, inept and courting disaster at home and abroad. Nor has he spared his former boss, who he says was overly preoccupied with “damage control” for policies set by others.
“What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made,” Wilkerson said in a well-publicized speech at the New America Foundation in October.
“And you’ve got a president who is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either,” he added.
Wilkerson has also focused attacks on the Bush administration for allegedly condoning torture and setting lax and ambiguous policies on treatment of detainees that inevitably led, he charges, to the scandal of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the black eye these gave to the army.”
By Rock On
July 24, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Everybody have fun tonight…everybody Wang Chung tonight!
Welcome to the jungle…we have fun and games..you can have anything you want but you better not take it from me.
Livin’ it up at the Hotel California…such a lonely place…
And I’ll see you on the dark side of the moon….
Shake your groove thing, shake your groove thing baby…
Purple rain…purple rain…this is what it sounds like when the doves cry…
I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain…blowin’ thru the jasmine in my mind…
Rikki don’t lose that number…it’s the only one you own…
Take it on the run baby…take it to the limit one more time…it’s another tequila sunrise…cause baby two out of three ain’t bad…
By Zack
July 24, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
Ms. Glass,
I just read your introduction. My friend, it is YOU who consistently, if not always, ignores reason and instead makes appeals based on emotion and/or what you hope is true. You’re just a liberal media person; that says it all.
By Kaka84003
July 24, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to anything today. I don’t care. I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. Basically not much happening right now. Maybe tomorrow. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
Ben Franklin: “He who trades freedom for security deserves neither”.
Thomas Jefferson: “Given the choice between government and a free press, choose the press”.
The stock response to these quotes is: “But times have changed - it’s a different world!”. Of course, those who can most often be heard parroting this particular explanation are also those who claim that: “The US was founded as a Christian nation, and that should never change no matter how much the world has changed around us” or “The Constitution was written as the Founding Fathers wanted, and we should take an absolute strict interpretation of it”.
Obviously, these sorts believe the Founding Fathers were only immutable on those topics they WISH them to be immutable on. All other topics are open for debate.
It’s apparent that our FF’s had a strong understanding of what does and does not constitute good government (for the most part, at least - they can be forgiven for ascribing to the generally held beliefs of the day about race and gender) and spoke very clearly about the balance of powers and the accountability of our leaders. However, since the right-wingers are desperate for absolute power, that which constitutes good governance is not high on their priority list.
By Donnie
July 24, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
The problem with the press is that they are leaning so far left that it’s a wonder they don’t just fall over!
Democrats do not know how to show respect for authority-namely the President. They are like school yard bullies that like to beat the crap out of everybody different from them. The last 4 letters of the word “democrats” sum it all up.
Just listen to them scream and yell (and those are the ones in office or running for office). They are the most unprofessional bunch the world has ever seen.
Love live the Republicans…
The media will never be free as long as the CIA/Jesuits control it though.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
Exhibit A…
By GOB
July 24, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Democrats do not know how to show respect for authority-namely the President. They are like school yard bullies that like to beat the crap out of everybody different from them.
Oh, the irony…
By The72John
July 24, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Democrats do not know how to show respect for authority-namely the President. They are like school yard bullies that like to beat the crap out of everybody different from them. The last 4 letters of the word “democrats” sum it all up.
Typical radio-shock-jock-brainwashed-schlock.
You understand that “We the People” have no responsibility to show any respect whatsoever for someone just because he is the President? You understand that the President should strive every single waking minute of his time in office earning our respect? Do a little research on Teddy Roosevelt and find out how a REAL President should behave.
A president deserves only that amount of respect that he earns by his actions. This President was gifted with a tremendous amount of the currency of trust after the days immediately following 9/11. He has squandered every cent of that currency by his blatant disregard for the Constitution, the world, International law, and basic human dignity. He deserves nothing but contempt from anyone who actually cares what this country stands for.
It’s ironic that you suggest Democrats beat up anyone who isn’t just like them. Seems to me that it’s the Conservatives who are doing their level-best to reduce the definition of “American” down to something as homogenized as a gallon of milk.
By Donnie
July 24, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
What the heck. Let’s do away with the Reps and Dems and just have one party-the American party. Only good Christian men and women need apply. No atheists, no homosexuals and no Catholics (these last two obviously eliminate the priests of the pope!).
Give us back our Protestant country!!! Go back to Rome with all of your pedophile priests!!!
By kimberly
July 24, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Hey Donnie, did you respectfully defend our previous President when the liberal media was cover… I mean, when they were exploiting the details of his private parts for fun and profit, and abeting the use of $70 million of your tax dollars to pull him away from his duties and into sleazy depositions with citizens who also did not respect his authority? Just curious.
By Amelia
July 24, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
Donnie, I respectfully disagree. The press exists to get stories and get the most mileage they can from them. During the Clinto administration they went after Bill to the point that Hillary pitched many of her most famous tirades (remember the vast right wing conspiracy?) and Clinton himself became very distrustful of the press. The press wants to sell the story. And this administration gives them lots of ammo. It is it’s own worst enemy.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
What the heck. Let’s do away with the Reps and Dems and just have one party-the American party. Only good Christian men and women need apply. No atheists, no homosexuals and no Catholics (these last two obviously eliminate the priests of the pope!).
Sorry, we defeated the Nazis in World War II. No need to bring them back.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Oh, the irony…
Speaking of Irony, Dumm…er…Donnie first posted this:
They are like school yard bullies that like to beat the crap out of everybody different from them.
and THEN posted this:
Only good Christian men and women need apply. No atheists, no homosexuals and no Catholics (these last two obviously eliminate the priests of the pope!)
Hmmm…someone needs to reconsider who is the one beating up people who are different…
By Billy
July 24, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Actually it’s ANY deposit transaction over $10K. The only way to circumvent the system is to work solely in cash.
it is actually a Summation of all account activity for someone’s NAME,(regardless of the number of related accounts) so eight $2,000 transactions, for example, would trip to over $10,000 and it would be reviewed/questioned by an internal bank auditor, for potential reporting.
And that includes cash. When I was a teller, if someone, including any companies, were to make a deposit that included $10K in cash, I had to fill out a TCTR (Something Currency Transaction Report). And I think it might have been $5K for personal accounts. Businesses could apply for exemptions to the regulation, but I believe all personal accounts were subject to it.
The government knows where money goes. At least amounts that can be used for expensive operations.
By Amelia
July 24, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
Thank you Donnie for dropping in from vdare.com to
By GOB
July 24, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
I am thinking “Donnie” is just trying to stir things up a bit.
By Amelia
July 24, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
All Donnie left out of his “vision” for America is that only white anglos should apply as well. What chased me from the republican party was that it seems to be becoming a magnet for views such as his. I think that Donnie is the republican “base” that they are always talking about.
By Donnie
July 24, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
Yes Kimberly, I did. I don’t care who the President sleeps with. The whole thing was ridiculous! Clinton was just one of the few who got caught with his pants down.
By Celine
July 24, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Donnie-I agree, who cares who the president has sex with. As a former catholic I also agree with sending the pedophile priests back to Rome. However, I disagree with going to one govt party. That’s a little scarey…of course so is our current govt.
As to the press-I think the song “Dirty Laundry” says it best.
By Mara
July 24, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
speaking of bias in the media…there’s an interesting article in the Washington Post today (Two Views of the Same News Finds Opposite Bias) about just that and how subjective “bias” is.
They showed the same news clip to Pro-Arab and Pro-Israel groups and then polled them on their perceptions. It was interesting that the Pro-Arab group found that the clip was bias in support of Israel, but the Pro-Israel group thought it displayed a distinct anti-Israeli bias.
Evidently, the more partisan one is, the greater the liklihood that one finds an anti-whatever-you-support bias in non-partisan reporting. The more evenhanded the reporting, the greater the perception of bias.
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Clinton was just one of the few who got caught with his pants down. do we really know if his pants were down? maybe he just unzipped.
By Celine
July 24, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
I think he was speaking figuratively.
I don’t care if they were down, unzipped, half way down his a**e, wrapped around his ankles or on his head…none of our business. But Hilary is another story-she’s the one who was wronged, not the American public.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
I think he was speaking figuratively.
And I’m pretty sure that Net was just being a wiseas$ :-)
By Kaka76738
July 24, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
My mind is like a bunch of nothing, but I guess it doesn’t bother me. I haven’t been up to anything recently. I’ve pretty much been doing nothing to speak of.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
Why is this bot so bloody angst-ridden?
By Celine
July 24, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Who is Kaka and what kind of mind altering drugs is she on? Maybe it’s just another scientologist gone awry.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Who is Kaka and what kind of mind altering drugs is she on? Maybe it’s just another scientologist gone awry.
Spam-bot
By Jack
July 24, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Hi Sweet Thing. Way too busy today. Give um Hell.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
Love live the Republicans
is that the new verion of Long live the Queen?
By GOB
July 24, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Love live the Republicans
is that the new verion of Long live the Queen?
Probably closer to Heil Hitler…
By The72John
July 24, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
I wonder if the religious fanatics who believe that Bush is divinely intended to be President view reporters and newspapers that criticize him to be heretical? Could it be that their obsession with labeling criticism as treason has more to do with their religious obsession that Bush is God’s chosen one, and less to do with patriotic fervor?
After all, if one rules by Divine Right, and then one is criticized, obviously the criticizer is defying God’s will and must therefore be punished.
By GOB
July 24, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
After all, if one rules by Divine Right, and then one is criticized, obviously the criticizer is defying God’s will and must therefore be punished.
That is an interesting idea, but I think you might be giving that group a lot more intellectual credit than they deserve. I am not sure they have the ability to make that sort of logical leap.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
After all, if one rules by Divine Right, and then one is criticized, obviously the criticizer is defying God’s will and must therefore be punished.
Is that a quote from King George III?
LOL @ Heil. (my home a/c unit, I long-arm saluted and brownbooted/kicked out when they installed it. Poor choice of a name for an a/c unit supplier but think it is a proper surname)
By The72John
July 24, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
That is an interesting idea, but I think you might be giving that group a lot more intellectual credit than they deserve. I am not sure they have the ability to make that sort of logical leap.
Hey, if they can figure out the low-down on the dinosaur/Arc conundrum, they can do anything.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
I was wondering if Zack, Chuck and Randy got caught up in Lozen’s missed The Rapture last week, but since Zack has posted today……LOL
I would think Diane would be proud to be called Liberal Media but what do I know?
By The72John
July 24, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
I would think Diane would be proud to be called Liberal Media but what do I know?
I think Diane probably realizes that when someone says “liberal media!” it’s most probably because they aren’t articulate enough to say anything more substantive. It’s an easy cop-out for the intellectually shorted.
By GOB
July 24, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Good point John. They have been able to go back and actually determine the exact date on which the earth was created 6000 years ago. How can you argue with that kind of brain power?
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Chilao…Heil is a proper German surname. It was my mother’s maiden name.
John…Me?! Make a wiseas$ comment about something that really doesn’t amount to diddle when put into the greater context of important things in life?
Hey, if they can figure out the low-down on the dinosaur/Arc conundrum, they can do anything. Geez…maybe we should have them working on alternative fuels so we can break free of the middle east. I keep hearing about “The Power of Prayer” Why can’t they figure out how to convert that into electricity or to fuel a car?
By Jackson
July 24, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
You guys need to get your head out of…the sand. Gays scream “ACCEPTANCE” and “TOLERANCE” at the top of their lungs but then turn around and kick Christians every chance they get. Who’s being intolerant now? The gays “accept my sexual practices or ELSE” mantra is growing weary and tiresome on all the non-gay and non-atheist citizens of the United States.
You need to watch who you mock…namely God.
By Shelly B
July 24, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
But Jackson, without them who’d decorate our houses or cut our hair??? Sheesh…
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Jackson? Uhhhh…how exactly is your comment germaine to the discussions at hand? If you don’t have anything nice to say…well I imagine you know the rest.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
You guys need to get your head out of…the sand. Gays scream “ACCEPTANCE” and “TOLERANCE” at the top of their lungs but then turn around and kick Christians every chance they get. Who’s being intolerant now? The gays “accept my sexual practices or ELSE” mantra is growing weary and tiresome on all the non-gay and non-atheist citizens of the United States.
That’s great, but I think you want a different blog…one that actually addresses…any…of the “topics” of your rant.
By Toad
July 24, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Then what does “heil, Hitler” mean? Hail?
By Eduardo
July 24, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
VIVA MCCAIN!!!! EL PRESIDENTE!!!
By lozen
July 24, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
We’re not mocking god, Jackson. We’re mocking stupidity and ignorance!
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Shelley…let’s not forget rehab run down neighborhoods into liveable communities with rising property values.
Or the school taxes they pay even though most gays don’t have any kids in the school systems.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Heil in German means many things but most likely Safe and Sound, saviour and salvation were the meanings part of the phrase Heil, Hitler.
stuff I just learned via an on-line German/English dictionary. I always thought it meant Hail as well.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute
By Kyle
July 24, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
“Should journalists restrain their reporting in the interest of national security?”
-ok, so am i right to assume that most of you would say no to this week’s question? no matter what? or would you say that there can be legitimate national security concerns that journalists should consider when deceiding what stories to run?
By The72John
July 24, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
-ok, so am i right to assume that most of you would say no to this week’s question? no matter what? or would you say that there can be legitimate national security concerns that journalists should consider when deceiding what stories to run?
Funny, but I would assume that you would be able to extrapolate this information from our various discussions. Or…do you need black and white, yes-or-no answers?
By TramadoL49987
July 24, 2006 11:45 PM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to much today. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I just don’t have anything to say right now. More or less nothing happening.
By Kaka87667
July 24, 2006 11:49 PM | Link to this
I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen. Whatever. Not much on my mind lately. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
By TramadoL47132
July 25, 2006 04:15 AM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to anything recently, but so it goes. Such is life. What can I say? Pretty much not much exciting going on to speak of. I haven’t gotten much done lately, but I don’t care.
By TramadoL74706
July 25, 2006 04:18 AM | Link to this
I just don’t have anything to say. Not that it matters. Eh. I’ve just been staying at home doing nothing, but I don’t care. That’s how it is.
By Amelia
July 25, 2006 07:50 AM | Link to this
Check out unity08.com. There is a serious move afoot by some very in tune political operatives to field a viable 3rd party MODERATE presidential candidate in 08. After witnessing the fiasco since 2006, there are millions of Americans that are fed up and disgusted with the way the radical wings of both parties have hijacked our system. The loony left and religious right have held the rest of us hostage for too long. The winds of change are blowing folks and the time has come to overhaul our system. The two party system is broken and disfunctional. We can start fixing it in 08. No more lunatic left. No more religious right. No more neo-cons.
By Mara
July 25, 2006 07:54 AM | Link to this
would you say that there can be legitimate national security concerns that journalists should consider when deceiding what stories to run
Sure there will be instances of legitimate national security concern, and when the government illustrates the probable damage, the media is pretty good about holding or even killing stories. However, it is the responsibility of the administration to prove to the journalist that national security would be imperiled. Just saying “oh, this could hurt the country” isn’t good enough, especially coming from the current group of shysters (saving the administration embarrassmentisn’t, IMO, a legitimate “national security” issue.) Also, if the government is engaged in what seems to be, to a reasonable person, illegal activities, for whatever reason, it is the duty of the free press to bring it before the American people. It is up to the government to show reason NOT to print, not the journalist to prove that they should.
You know, before this administration took power I actually trusted the government, mostly?
By Amelia
July 25, 2006 08:06 AM | Link to this
I heard that Mara. When anyone in the present administration says trust me…don’t. This is the most dishonest administration in the history of this nation. But hopefully, out of this will come a more aware populace.
By Archie
July 25, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
To Mara and Amelia I agree with your last two posts. I won’t post much because you guys have covered my opinion pretty well.
By renee
July 25, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this
Well said Mara.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
However, it is the responsibility of the administration to prove to the journalist that national security would be imperiled. Just saying “oh, this could hurt the country” isn’t good enough, especially coming from the current group of shysters (saving the administration embarrassmentisn’t, IMO, a legitimate “national security” issue.)
The Bush administration has brought this on itself by cloaking itself in secrecy, invoking National Security to protect something as innocuous as how often Dick Cheney has to change his Depends, and by blackballing any legitimate member of the press who dares to seem critical.
Just as an example, Helen Thomas, the redoubtable and bull-dogged member of the Press Corps who has been a (brilliant) thorn in the side of Presidents dating back to Nixon, is not given the chance to ask questions anymore because she has been critical of Bush in the past. This administration has wrapped itself inside a self-congratulatory Polyanna blanket since day one and refuses to either admit error or to tolerate those who dare to suggest that it is anything less than perfect.
I, for one, trust the journalistic ethics of the nation’s greatest papers far more than I trust the slimy, jingoistic, invoking-the-spectre-of-treason spin-doctoring of Bush and his cronies.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
Amelia, I’m curious to know what you consider “looney left”. Most Democrats with any seniority or position within the Party are decidedly not far-left Democrats. Most of them verge on being moderate Republicans when it comes down to a straight-line comparison of positions.
So, I’m just wondering what it is you define as fringe left?
By Renee
July 25, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
Well said again John. I think what gets me is this administration feels as if they have the right, and are right to keep pertinent information away from the American people. The same people who put Bush in office, have the right to get honest information on what is going on. He, and his administration have been so dishonest from the beginning.
By Mara
July 25, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
Thank you…thank you verra much :^)
Amelia - it’ll depend on what they mean by “moderate”. Take John Dean, for instance. As a Goldwater Republican he was once considered a right-wing conservative. Now, according to him, a Goldwater Republican would fall just slightly left of center. Look at Hillary Clinton. Most of her votes and views are fairly centrist, yet she’s considered an uber-liberal. Those of us who used to be slightly left or moderate left (fiscally conservative social liberals) are now considered…what’d you call us? Ah, the “looney left”.
I’ll keep an eye on Unity08, though. Who knows, they might actually be saying exactly what they mean…
By Mara
July 25, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this
I forgot to add “(laughing cynically…)” to the end of my last post
By The72John
July 25, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this
I think what gets me is this administration feels as if they have the right, and are right to keep pertinent information away from the American people.
And don’t forget his crippling of the Freedom of Information act, his tremendous re-classification of documents that were once available through the correct channels to make them inaccessible, his changing of the rules on Presidential papers to cover up his father’s involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair (now THAT’S an affair that should have lead to an impeachment), etc.
It’s like watching the Soviet Polit Bureau and KGB at work sometimes.
By GOB
July 25, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
It’s like watching the Soviet Polit Bureau and KGB at work sometimes.
Except they were a little more tactful…
By Lyrazel
July 25, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this
Its odious when two blogger columnists compare themselves to being journalists just because they write for a newspaper. Neither woman has ever shown journalistic expertise, facts are rarely presented, both have resorted to using completely emotional prejudice to prove an argument. This is entertainment in a newspaper: a society column where our crack pot opinions are always more interesting than the articles. Because of OUR INVESTMENT OF TIME AS REPEAT BLOGGERS…more opinion columnists have gotten their own blogs at this paper. This is the fate of news/reporting. Its the Geraldo Effect: when your evening news lead story is who won The Apprentice or American Idol. Look at the front page of the AJC today, we are at war but headline news that Nicole Richie is too thin. Indeed there is ZERO information on the front page of the war in Iraq but a hidden link leads you to a page of articles that are only local interest stories. THIS is the state of the journalism today and its has been swallowed by entertainment!
Think of news stories you hear on TV. You hear at best 1.25 minutes of news about any one issue, be it war, taxes and controversy concerning our president. The headlines are flashy as the graphics but there is NO CONTENT. Once a reporter breaks a story only if it is newsworthy does it ever air, thus translated: if it keeps viewers, is entertaining in some way, or maybe a video of a bomb, stories of rape or murder in the city keeps people tuned in—stories about Iraq looses viewers. I am told people dont want to hear about Iraq anymore well, why are we still sending troops? Its like no one wants to be inconvenienced by news of Iraq thus not even the AJC keeps war news on its front page. Odd isnt it?
One of the reasons I have never believed any conspiracy theory is because I know too well the incapacity of most people in government to be able to keep a profound secret…thus it always leaks. Too many peons guarding the pot of gold. As to the broad category of national security I feel the average public citizen does not really care and is not interested in bills, legislation, wire tapping, and anything other than important issues unless it involves sex, movie stars or television or Cynthia McKinney hairdo, Janet Jacksons t*t and the fact Bush used the word s-h-i-t. Was any of it NEWS? How many DAYS was it headlined?
ONLY THE IRS actually functions in American government…everyone else just takes space…
By Kyle
July 25, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
-Mara…very good points in your 7:54 post, and i agree with this post for the most part - but are you saying that these points apply to the recent nyt article about the terrorists financing program? i may be wrong, but i don’t think any illegal activites were alleged in that article, and even the nyt, reasonable as they may be, didn’t accuse the administration of breaking any laws. it didn’t seem like this article was being run to protect our freedoms. i certianly agree with you that it is the administration’s responsibility to prove their case of national security concerns to the press, but would you agree that when no laws are being broken and no rights are being violated that the press should give the administration the benefit of the doubt in national security concerns?
“Amelia, I’m curious to know what you consider “looney left”. Most Democrats with any seniority or position within the Party are decidedly not far-left Democrats. Most of them verge on being moderate Republicans when it comes down to a straight-line comparison of positions.”
-John…the name Howard Dean comes to mind, the head of the dnc
-i will conceed to you all that this administration has been entirely too secretive in many of its dealings which has in turn created many of its critics
By The72John
July 25, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this
-John…the name Howard Dean comes to mind, the head of the dnc
Ok, you do like most knee-jerk Conservatives and name Howard Dean, but what about his positions makes him a fringe liberal? The guy is very flamboyant, and very vocal in his criticism of the Republican party, but then - Newt Gingrich was also loudly vocal in his criticism of the Democratic party back when he engineered the “Contract with America”.
What about Howard Dean makes him “Fringe”? Are you able to define those positions, or do you just rely on what talk radio and the talking heads of the GOP tell you is “Fringe”? I can certainly tell you what positions in the Religious Right I most object to, so why don’t you see if you can give me a substantive answer instead of a pat one.
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Look at Hillary Clinton. Most of her votes and views are fairly centrist, yet she’s considered an uber-liberal.
mara - don’t be fooled by her recent move toward the middle. you’re too smart for that. look at the policies she has espoused throughout her adult life. if those things are centrist in your mind, then by all means, pass the pipe.
Most Democrats with any seniority or position within the Party are decidedly not far-left Democrats.
lol. i thought friday was joke day.
By Amelia
July 25, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
You are probably right Mara. Maybe the looney left is an exagerated term. So I stand corrected. On the other hand there are some really dangerous people residing on the right wing of the republican party. To me the ideal candidate resides from the center left to the center right. Get beyond that and they’re both too far out for me. It’s the unbending ideologues that have destroyed the political process in this country.
By Renee
July 25, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
hey bla!!!! how are Mrs bla and baby bla????
By The72John
July 25, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
lol. i thought friday was joke day.
Hmm…or maybe you and much of the rest of America is so rabidly right-wing that anything that smacks of liberalism becomes fringe liberalism?
Yeah, that’s more like it.
By kimberly
July 25, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
Hey Blabla! How’s the family?
I have a question for you (and other righties): If Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean were to die tomorrow in a strange, well-timed accident (like Sen. Paul Wellstone), who would the right-wingers place in the vacuum to demonize and blame for all the wrong-thinking dadgum libruls in this country? Do you have any contenders? Would you institute an American Idol type search, or would you just wait and see whom Rush and Hannity select? Just curious.
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
Hmm…or maybe you and much of the rest of America is so rabidly right-wing that anything that smacks of liberalism becomes fringe liberalism?
lol. i don’t spend four hours a day online arguing religion and politics with complete strangers. just who, in fact, is rabid?
if the socially moderate and fiscally conservative positions i have supported on this blog historically reek of extremism to you, that may be more an indictment of your positions than mine.
By Mara
July 25, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Kyle - the thing about the NYT story is that it’s never been about illegal activities or civil rights violations. The article was information, pure and simple. Of course the Times didn’t make any attempt to insinuate that the program broke any laws because that was never the story. In fact the authors of the article made a point of noting that no evidence of violations were found. Another point is that although the program wasn’t publicized or well known, nor it’s scope fully appreciated, it wasn’t a “secret national security program”. Had it been, the administration would have had every right to kill the story. They didn’t do so because they had no cause, other than the fear of the public finding out that they were spying on us again. The article didn’t harm national security, but it did tell me what my was up to in the name of “fighting terrorists”.
would you agree that when no laws are being broken and no rights are being violated that the press should give the administration the benefit of the doubt in national security concerns?
No. As I said, it is up to the administration to show why an article shouldn’t be published, not the journalist to defend printing. If the security concerns are valid, the government should have no trouble making their case. An administration that fears scrutiny by the public is NOT one whose word I’d be willing to take on trust.
By Amelia
July 25, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
I don’t know if it is republicans in general, and I used to be one until the party lost it’s soul, but it seems that anyone with any sort of social conscience is automatically a “socialist”. And then the party started pandering to the vdare.com types that are so obviously racist and nativist. It seems that this year in particular the republicans are going out of their way to get people fired up over racially charged issues. They have become a magnet for every group that is anti-anything not anglo.
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
renee -
how are you? glad to read that you seem to be still plugging along. mrs. bla is getting really big. she has restless legs and is having difficulty sleeping, but such is life in the third trimester, i’m afraid. overall though she’s doing well and measuring right on track, according to the doc. she’s pretty happy but i think she’s getting tired of being pregnant. i know i would be.
we recently took our childbirth class and got to watch “the video” in all it’s graphic detail. aside from the sensory overload from everything, i walked away with a tremendous amount more respect for all mothers and women who go through the childbearing process. it has all been very humbling.
btw, watching “the video” would be a great way to keep teens from engaging in pre-marital sex.
By Amelia
July 25, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
That one’s easy Kimberly. Al Gore! He scares them to death. Al won the popular vote first time around. If he runs again he wins. If the Hannity/Limbaugh types even smell a Gore candidacy they will go to any despicable length to derail him.
By Billy
July 25, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
Hmm…or maybe you and much of the rest of America is so rabidly right-wing that anything that smacks of liberalism becomes fringe liberalism?
Exactly.
These “loonies” on the left aren’t as leftist as they are made out to be. If someone has just a couple of liberal opinions, they are painted with the leftist brush. See: Bill Maher — pretty much Libertarian, but reviled by many on the right.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
if the socially moderate and fiscally conservative positions i have supported on this blog historically reek of extremism to you, that may be more an indictment of your positions than mine.
I don’t suggest that you are an extremist, only that you are solidly in the traditional conservative camp. My point was not to criticize you but to illustrate the perceptual problems that most people have. You label people who are traditional liberals as far-left or fringe liberals, when in fact they are not.
Almost every ranking Democrat supports traditional liberal positions, from social programs to government involvement in business, but there are no anti-globalization, PETA-vegans, die-hard Socialists/Communists, or back-to-nature types currently in office. THAT’s the fringe, THOSE are the looney lefties who lack balance or flexibility.
But because the ultra-conservative media types have done such a good job at villifying the very word “liberal”, anyone who is your spectrum opposite - that is, a philosophical liberal who understands that not everything is black and white - much like you are a philosophical conservative who understands the same - is painted as a panting lunatic.
By GOB
July 25, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
It seems that the “loony left” label, and others like it, tend to get used even more against those people who are not advocating a strong christian government. Obviously it isnt just them, but it seems like they often get the worst treatment.
By Kyle
July 25, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
Ok, you do like most knee-jerk Conservatives and name Howard Dean, but what about his positions makes him a fringe liberal? The guy is very flamboyant, and very vocal in his criticism of the Republican party, but then - Newt Gingrich was also loudly vocal in his criticism of the Democratic party back when he engineered the “Contract with America”.
What about Howard Dean makes him “Fringe”? Are you able to define those positions, or do you just rely on what talk radio and the talking heads of the GOP tell you is “Fringe”? I can certainly tell you what positions in the Religious Right I most object to, so why don’t you see if you can give me a substantive answer instead of a pat one.
John….first of all i don’t think you can compare dean’s demeanor to newt - not even close. newt was outspoken, but he actually spoke in a normal tone/volume level. dean’s “flamboyance” is exactly what makes him fall into the category of the “loney left”, at least in my mind. his demeanor is just not respectable and its counterproductive when he is trying to get any of his points across. how can you pay attention to any of his points when he is constantly screaming at the top of his lungs and running around some stage? i liken dean to mckinney in that they have both lost credibility through their past actions and any future attempt of thiers to put forth any arguments/points will be overshadowed by their past “flamboyant” actions. are you really so partisan that you take offense when someone claims that there is a “loney left” as well as a “religious right?” i consider myself right leaning and conservative, and i can certianly admit that there is a portion of people on the right that get out of hand - can you not acknowledge the same for the left?
By The72John
July 25, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
Almost every ranking Democrat supports traditional liberal positions
I meant to add that while they support these positions, most of them support the kind of limits and compromises that indicate a moderate leaning.
By kimberly
July 25, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
Good answer, Amelia. You’re right. Now that Gore has loosened up, people can see the value of his knowledge, good sense, and experience. That’s certainly a threat to the pavlov-trained righties.
I just think it’s funny how so many will start shrieking (it’s okay when THEY do it) at the very mention of Hillary or HD, about how they’ll ruin life as we know it and turn everything they touch into a Marxist hell, but they can speak nothing to the actual votes, opinions, policies, or programs these people have actually supported.
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
hi kimberly - there’s still just two of us (for now) and the two four legged labradors that bounce all over the place. the addition should arrive at the end of september.
to answer your question on a personal level, first of all i don’t think liberals are wrong-thinking. secondly, for me, it isn’t about a particular politician as much as it is policies.
generally speaking, i don’t like any politicians, regardless of whether they have an R or a D by their name. i think they’d all do or say whatever it takes to get them re-elected. so for me there is no new “target” to demonize beyond dean or hillary.
but for the rush/hannity world, my guess is pelosi and schumer are next on the list. not exactly original, but that’s who i’d pick the talk radio groupies to go after.
By Jack
July 25, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
Hi Sweet! :)
John Murtha would fit the bill.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
are you really so partisan that you take offense when someone claims that there is a “loney left” as well as a “religious right?
I’m just waiting for you to define the political positions that you think existing democrat leadership takes that makes them fringe left. You have yet to be able to do so.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
are you really so partisan that you take offense when someone claims that there is a “loney left” as well as a “religious right?”
And actually, no - I can’t agree that there is an equivalent “looney left” to the “religious right”. The RR has a powerful grip on the policies of the GOP and uses that power to shove its theocratic agenda and philosophies down the throats of the country. There is no comparable power base or cabal of influential leaders within the Democratic party.
By Mara
July 25, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Hey Bla. Long time no blog!!
Regarding Hillary’s centrist views…(and this is meant as a legitimate query) why is it that conservatives just can’t believe that she could, just maybe, reconsider long held positions on the basis of things she hadn’t considered, perhaps the cost of unintended consequences she’d never given much weight to, or even a maturing view of the world? What is it about her that makes conservatives go up in flames?
(fyi - i’m not a hillary-water carrier, but her views can be assessed here http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm)
By NetBanker
July 25, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
Some interesting comments today! Hey kids! Hey Bla…good to hear the Mrs. is doing well.
I already hear Hannity going after Nancy Pelosi. I think she’s on the uber-conservative shock jock’s second string list who might move up should the Republican lose control of the House.
Amelia…some very astute points. I’ve been dying for a viable 3rd party alternative to the current two party system. It would be a breath of fresh air into politics and maybe enough to shock the current parties out of their ruts.
I don’t want the topic to get sidelined into religion, but here’s a ‘things that make you go hmmmm’ thought from The Vent that seemed worthy of sharing:
“If money is the root of all evil, why do churches beg for it?”
By The72John
July 25, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
John Murtha would fit the bill.
Why? Because he has opinions about the war that apparently most of the country now shares?
Oh right - anyone who dares to suggest that soldiers don’t all walk on water is a fringe loon, right Jack? Even the ones that murder civilians.
By kimberly
July 25, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Ahh yes, Bla, the four-leggers will be saddened by their demotion within the pack, but they’ll get over it.
Pelosi already gets it too. There’s a troglidyte on Wooten’s blog that calls her a “feminazi” daily. How original! I agree that most politicians are self-serving manipulators. Many of them, I think, don’t start out that way. Kind of like teachers, they enter the profession with ideals and a real desire to better things. The system taints and corrupts, and many leave very different people. Politicians leave rich; teachers leave cynical. Sad either way, but I think we (the people) should try to focus more on solving problems and exposing and eliminating the corrupting influences (K street) that have taken our government away from us.
By Mara
July 25, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
John - EXACTLY!!! It isn’t Howards political views that make him part of the “loony left” it’s his demeanor LOL!!!
As Kyle points out, dean’s “flamboyance” is exactly what makes him fall into the category of the “loney left”, at least in my mind. his demeanor is just not respectable…
So Kyle, if Dean popped a few Prozac and calmed down a little could he get off your “loony” list?
By GOB
July 25, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
first of all i don’t think you can compare dean’s demeanor to newt - not even close. newt was outspoken, but he actually spoke in a normal tone/volume level. dean’s “flamboyance” is exactly what makes him fall into the category of the “loney left”, at least in my mind. his demeanor is just not respectable and its counterproductive when he is trying to get any of his points across. how can you pay attention to any of his points when he is constantly screaming at the top of his lungs and running around some stage?
Have you ever listened to him in any setting other than a campaign fundraiser (aside from the one screaming incident)? If so, you would know that he actually is very intelligent and has some good, reasoned and well thought out ideas. The fact that you think all he does is run around stage screaming shows how much you have been influenced by the descriptions of him by the likes of Hannity and O’Reily.
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
You label people who are traditional liberals as far-left or fringe liberals, when in fact they are not.
fair point. but i think this ignores the shift that’s been occurring within the democratic party the last few years. back before the 2004 election, howard dean was a nothing if not a fringe guy. a weird dude from a state known for being weird, he was viewed largely as angry and unelectable. he won favor for his ardent opposition to iraq and his ability to build a groundswell with like-minded, mostly anti-war liberals through the use of the internet and blogs.
and what did the party do? made him chair of the dnc. so while i don’t think he’s as “fringe” as he used to be, since he’s running the dnc, i do think he’s pulled the entire democratic party more to the left and wants to continue to do so. the standing of someone like lieberman, who’s gone from vp candidate to potentially losing his senate primary for not being enough of a lefty in six short years, illustrates my point on this.
By Brian Curtis
July 25, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Kyle: You asked “If no crimes were being committed, or even alleged, shouldn’t the press give the government the benefit of the doubt?” Answer: No. Telling us what the government’s doing (legal or illegal) is ALWAYS in the public interest by definition.
Your question operates from the wrong starting point, in my view; journalists are supposed to publish absolutely EVERYTHING of interest to the public (space permitting) unless there’s a specific, narrowly defined reason NOT TO. They have no obligation to just remain silent unless they uncover proof of malfeasance; that’s an attitude of pre-emptive censorship, and it doesn’t fit in with the First Amendment.
Rather, the press has an obligation to automatically publish any story about ANY topic, legal or illegal, criminal or above-board… UNLESS the government can come up with compelling proof or reasons it shouldn’t. That’s the only way to have a free press that holds the powerful accountable for their acts—-by knowing their every act, even entirely legitimate ones, are under public scrutiny at all times.
We have freedom to the exact degree that government does not.
By Billy
July 25, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
All Dean did was yell when he got caught up in a moment. How else has his flamboyance presented itself in a way that would cause credibility issues?
By Toad
July 25, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
I’m in favor of a third party, too. One with real progressive values, such as the Green Party. The majority of Dems and Reps are too similar in their views and the Dems feel like they have to tone down their liberal politics which is why they end up losing voters. John Lewis is one of the most liberal members of congress but is highly respected, so I’d classify him as left, but not looney.
By Jack
July 25, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
That bait looks mighty good John. Go to war and see the carnage and smell the death and the faces that never leave you and then we can talk. It is NOT my opinion that all soldiers walk on water. Murtha was a marine turned political scumbag. Kerry too. Talk about civilians, our enemies routinely target them because they are innocent. Leaving now that I have swallowed the bait.
By kimberly
July 25, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
Breakin’ down the Dean Scream: (again) “The scream” was misrepresented, folks. Dean was addressing a large hall full of volunteers. It was a pump-em-up speech, much like the coaches you revere so much give in their locker rooms on Saturday mornings. (Six more weeks! Yayyy!) But the TV stations had their microphones jacked up in front of Gov. Dean. So when he projected appropriately to address his supporters in the back of the large hall, the equipment captured what, from that angle, was an over-the-top audio assault.
Being that “journalists” today are more concerned with the entertainment value of their stories and footage than the news or truth value, they saw it as gold. The scream was repeated dozens of times an hour for weeks, until Dean was utterly discredited by the fact that no one could remember anything else he actually ever said. You were manipulated by the WHORE press. Thank them for that, won’t you?
By NetBanker
July 25, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
Mara…while your query may be legitimate we must remember that Republicans “reconsider long held positions.” We know this to be true because our very own current President has done just that when he reconsidered his position on the creation of a department of Homeland Defense, for example. Democrats simply flip-flop.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
and what did the party do? made him chair of the dnc. so while i don’t think he’s as “fringe” as he used to be, since he’s running the dnc, i do think he’s pulled the entire democratic party more to the left and wants to continue to do so. the standing of someone like lieberman, who’s gone from vp candidate to potentially losing his senate primary for not being enough of a lefty in six short years, illustrates my point on this.
So…you’re saying that Lieberman’s being in danger of losing his seat because he almost never votes with the party and is a democrat in name only is indicative of a far-left shift?
Actually, I think you illustrate MY point perfectly with this example. Lieberman is basically a conservative - you’re suggesting that because he doesn’t appeal to his constituents any more that they must be far-left liberals? Um..no…try just “liberal”.
Yet again, you associate any degree of liberalism with far liberalism. Just like Howard Dean’s opposition to Iraq…how is that FAR left? Because it doesn’t agree with the Neo-Con party line it’s FAR left? I had no idea that being opposed to war made one an arch-liberal.
By kimberly
July 25, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
Jack,
Like YOU, Murtha and Kerry put on uniforms and fought like men. That gives them the right to express their beliefs in my opinion. I’d never tell YOU to put a sock in it! Why do you vilify them? They can say whatever they damn well think about the war, because they’ve EARNED it!
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
I already hear Hannity going after Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi already gets it too.
Net/Kimberly, i guess this reaffirms how little attention i pay to the shock jocks on tv or radio.
mara - of course hillary could be changing her views. it’s totally conceivable. just like any of us could. i just don’t think that it’s likely. i’ve posted on this blog a number of times what my issues are with her and why i personally don’t trust her and dislike her politics. the website you posted the link to says things like “nobody has tried harder to recreate their image as a centrist” than hillary. i don’t want leaders who re-create their image when it’s politically beneficial to them. and note that i’ve said nothing about her role in all of the various clinton scandals.
By Amelia
July 25, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Good question Net Banker! Maybe Ralph Reed isn’t busy today and can answer that for us.
By Brian Curtis
July 25, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Kyle really does demonstrate how effective the far-right propaganda machine has been. He actually says Howard Dean “can’t stop screaming and running around the stage,” exactly as the right-wing media drones intended.
It’s also the ONLY thing he knows about Dean… that one, single, ten-second clip of Dean’s enthusiasm at a political rally. That’s all the right-wing drones talk about, it’s all they ever say in relation to Dean: “He’s a screamer, he’s insane.” Over and over and over.
And the he-ll of it is, this shallow propaganda tactic WORKS. People think they have a genuine understanding of Dean, his personality, and his positions based entirely on the repeated Big Lie tactic of sounding one note, over and over. “Dean’s a screamer”; “Shrillary wants to be President”; “Murtha’s a traitor”; “Kerry’s a flip-flopper.”
None of it’s true, but it’s easy to remember and fits on a bumper sticker. That’s media control for you… or, as Goebbels called it, propaganda.
As for “liberals” in Congress… ARE there any? I certainly haven’t seen them. The Democratic party is entirely run by moderates these days, most doing their best to seem Republican-lite in a vain effort to beg votes from the redneck contingent. Actual liberals are few and far between since Paul Wellstone died.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
That bait looks mighty good John. Go to war and see the carnage and smell the death and the faces that never leave you and then we can talk. It is NOT my opinion that all soldiers walk on water. Murtha was a marine turned political scumbag. Kerry too. Talk about civilians, our enemies routinely target them because they are innocent. Leaving now that I have swallowed the bait.
I see…so because two men who witnessed the carnage you describe chose to act morally and attempt to put an end to it, they are…scumbags? Interesting.
As for what our enemy does, so? Because they use vile tactics, it’s OK for us to? It’s OK for 4 marines to rape and murder an Iraqi girl, or for a few men to massacre an entire village out of anger? No. We’re supposed to be better than that.
I will never understand why someone like you who talks about how horrible war is continues to believe we should be engaging in it at the drop of a hat.
By Toad
July 25, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
The press and the other Dem candidates targeted Dean because he was the front runner early in the campaign. I remember one presidential debate where all the candidates were asked if they thought Dean could win. Of course, all but Dean said “no.” Why didn’t they ask “can Kerry, Edwards, etc. win?” Then when the scream came along Dean was ridiculed incessantly. This will happen to any front-runner, who the right wing now thinks is Hillary.
By GOB
July 25, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
Jack - What have Kerry and Murtha done, other than oppose the war, that makes them “scumbags?” Other than not agreeing with you of course…
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
Yet again, you associate any degree of liberalism with far liberalism. Just like Howard Dean’s opposition to Iraq…how is that FAR left?
john, when howard dean was running for pres on a platform that was based on opposition to iraq, in late 03 and early 04, that was a pretty fringe position, even among democrats. most dems weren’t anti-war when dean was first presenting himself on the national stage.
while an anti-war position isn’t far left TODAY, it was in late 03/early 04. that was my point.
the party took this guy who was a loose cannon and using an unpopular (at the time) anti-iraq stance and made him chair of the party. now we see that one of the darlings of the party might lose his seat for not being liberal enough. forget liberal versus far liberal semantics - are you honestly of the belief that the party hasn’t undergone a leftist shift in the last few years?
By The72John
July 25, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
This will happen to any front-runner, who the right wing now thinks is Hillary
I say let Hillary be a stalking-horse for as long as possible, and then bring Gore out. He’s capable of winning - again.
By Toad
July 25, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
As for “liberals” in Congress… ARE there any?
John Lewis, Barbara Boxer, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Cynthia McKinney, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Lee, Russ Feingold, Bernard Sanders, John Conyers, Charles Rangel, Chuck Schumer get my vote
By Jack
July 25, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Honey. I never said they should “out a sock in it” They have every right to say what they want. I also have the right not to agree with them and call them scum if I wish. The Democrats should have nominated Dean instead of Kerry. They freaked out because Dean showed some passion. He would have done better than Mr. Heinz. Female co-workers who vote Democrat said that Kerry scared them so they voted for Bush. Briar Rabbit would have beat Kerry.
By NetBanker
July 25, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Kimberly… I,too, was highly frustrated by the whole Dean incident and the way it was portrayed. It goes to show you that the difference between passionate and flamboyent loon is an out of context sound bite. Unfortunately, perception/portrayal generally does count for more than reality.
Bla..he was viewed largely as angry and unelectable Is that due to how he was portrayed in the so called ‘liberal’ media or truly due to what he was saying (i.e. his positions)?
By GOB
July 25, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
are you honestly of the belief that the party hasn’t undergone a leftist shift in the last few years?
I think it probably appears like there has been a leftist shift to some degree, but that is more likely caused by the huge shift to the right by the republicans. The gap is now wider, but I am not sure it is the democrats that did the moving. In reality, I think the democrats are actually moving to the right as well, trying to keep the centrist vote.
By Toad
July 25, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Lieberman was picked because of his conservatism and his attack on Clinton during the “sex scandal.” Gore was trying to distance himself from Clinton by picking someone who stood in opposition of Clinton.
By GOB
July 25, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
I say let Hillary be a stalking-horse for as long as possible, and then bring Gore out. He’s capable of winning - again.
That isnt a bad idea, I just dont know that Gore can win. Americans do not like a loser, regardless of whether it was fair or not. I think he will have a hard time getting enough of the undecided vote to take the whole thing. He has been, and will continue to be, painted as a loser who went off the deep end after the election. It might be too much to overcome. What we need is David Palmer…
By lozen
July 25, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Being opposed to this administration’s war has made many of us arch-liberal! Asking questions, criticizing, pointing out the lack of credible answers to our questions have made so many of us loony-liberals. Used to be good to be involved but not any more. You’re just supposed to believe what your told without question! Cuz our prez is a christian and he wouldn’t lie to us!
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
I think it probably appears like there has been a leftist shift to some degree, but that is more likely caused by the huge shift to the right by the republicans. The gap is now wider…
my personal positions on most issues haven’t changed. from my perspective, the dems have moved further left. however, gob, you have a point in that i also believe the gop has moved more to the right and gotten a lot more religious in the last several years.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
are you honestly of the belief that the party hasn’t undergone a leftist shift in the last few years?
Lol - you bet. If anything, it’s undergone a RIGHT shift. Democrats are struggling to be the “Me too, but less” party to the Republicans - taking the same positions as Republicans but claiming to be a little less extreme rather than defining the characteristics of the party.
By Toad
July 25, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
Americans do not like a loser Well, Nixon made a come back! A recent poll showed Gore with a wide lead over Sen. Clinton.
By kimberly
July 25, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Jack, I agree with you about Dean. He was my choice, but our primary system is rigged so people in Iowa and other states have choices that for some reason, I didn’t have. Why didn’t I get to vote for Dean? Kerry let us down. He took the high road in a dirty fight when he should have laid ‘em out flat. It would have been nice to have some intellect in the White House — someone who both cares and understands how things work, how to prounce people’s names, and can conduct diplomatic relations without embarrassing us! But he let us down by not fighting harder for the position.
By Toad
July 25, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Americans do not like a loser Well, Nixon made a come back! A recent poll showed Gore with a wide lead over Sen. Clinton.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Americans do not like a loser Well, Nixon made a come back! A recent poll showed Gore with a wide lead over Sen. Clinton.
Yup - we’re talking 20 or 30 points, as I remember. He was by far the most promising candidate identified.
By Toad
July 25, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this
Americans do not like a loser Well, Nixon made a come back! A recent poll showed Gore with a wide lead over Sen. Clinton.
By Amelia
July 25, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this
Now that the nation can compare Gore to GW’s actual performance as prez, Gore looks like a winner. His Documentary and book, An Inconvenient Truth, perfectly illustrates the difference in the depth of Gore as opposed to the ineptness of W. W will go down in history as one of the worst. And Iraq will be viewed as one of the greatest blunders in the history of the presidency. Please 2008. HURRY!
By Toad
July 25, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
Americans do not like a loser Well, Nixon made a come back! A recent poll showed Gore with a wide lead over Sen. Clinton.
By Toad
July 25, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Sorry for the triple post!
By Renee
July 25, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
It’s one way to get your point across Toad!!
By Mara
July 25, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
bla - regarding the “fringiness” of Deans anti-war position in ‘03-‘04… I didn’t remember thinking it ‘fringe’ so I went back and looked through some of the polls from that time,,,and you know what? Among Democrats it wasn’t that far left after all. Approximately 1/3 of primary voters wanted an pro-war candidate and another 1/3 said it didn’t matter one way or another. Even in the national polls, when the question went from “for the war/against the war” to a more nuanced selection, the fringiness of the anti-war group decreased substantially.
That doesn’t mean I don’t respect your right to think of Howard as left fringe, just that the reasoning behind it doesn’t really hold up.
By Billy
July 25, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
john, when howard dean was running for pres on a platform that was based on opposition to iraq, in late 03 and early 04, that was a pretty fringe position, even among democrats. most dems weren’t anti-war when dean was first presenting himself on the national stage.
while an anti-war position isn’t far left TODAY, it was in late 03/early 04. that was my point.
So, Howard Dean, the raving, screaming lunatic, was warning everyone about the folly of the Iraq venture before the bulk of the Democratic party was against it. Does that make him “fringe”, or just smarter than the others?
By Billy
July 25, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
How sad is it that being against attacking someone who has done nothing to you is considered a “fringe” position?
By The72John
July 25, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
Hey, Toad - did Nixon make a comeback?
By Peter
July 25, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Hope you come back soon!! nokia6630
By Toad
July 25, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
The screen kept going blank so I hit refresh — not trying to bombard you.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
Hey look - Chavez and Lukushenko have settled on a mutual assitance pact. That’s all we need. Let’s have a big ‘ole dictator party.
By Toad
July 25, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
I think Nixon was heeerrreeee! repeating my posting Until the day he died I was tormented by the thought that he was eligible to run for president again, since he only served six years. I meant he made a comeback after losing to JFK in 1960.
By Mara
July 25, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
John - I thought that Chavez was democratically elected, as was Lukashenko. Though some critics assert that both countries elections were tainted, I have to say that they are both at least as legitimate as George Bushs election.
That said, how can one have a big ol’ dictator party if the “dictators” are legitimately chosen by their populace?
By GOB
July 25, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Yup - we’re talking 20 or 30 points, as I remember. He was by far the most promising candidate identified.
I hadnt seen those polls, so he might still be the best choice. Was the poll of democratic voters only, or was it a general poll of all likely voters? If it was just democratic, I still think he wouldnt be able to get enough of the the undecided vote. It will be interesting to see though, although he was on Conan last week and said he didnt think he was going to run.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
That said, how can one have a big ol’ dictator party if the “dictators” are legitimately chosen by their populace?
Lukushenko’s election, at least, was probably rigged. Though I refer more to their demeanor than their position. Neither is particularly savory in terms of how they use their power, and 20 years from now when they are winning their elections unchallenged, we’ll see…
By Kyle
July 25, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
“So Kyle, if Dean popped a few Prozac and calmed down a little could he get off your “loony” list?”
Mara…uhhhh, yes. when i placed him in the “loney left” i was speaking towards his image in the media, not the issues he supported (John…dean’s ideas may not be loney but his public image is). the issues he supports aren’t really “loney” i just don’t agree with some of them. perhaps the media has unfairly swayed my opinion of dean and maybe i am giving to much weight to one moment - but many people, right or wrong, now cannot seperate the image of dean screaming from dean himself (the damage has been done). thus, he is largely ineffective in portraying his message. can a person who supports the democratic party honestly sit here and say they are happy that dean is the head - many democratic politicians make it a point to be clear that they don’t agree with howard dean on a variety of things/statements. even if you agree with his views, wouldn’t you rather someone who hasn’t been labeled (unfairly or not) as a loon to attempt to get these issues to the public. it jsut seems that someone without the history would be a much more effective leader for the dems.
-BC…just b/c i didn’t immediately answer any questions about dean’s views don’t equate that into me not knowing anything about him. some of us on here, and probably you as well, don’t have time to simply stare at the blog all day and respond right away. his now tarnished image aside (whether you think it deserved or not), i will tell you what i disagree with dean on. i happen to support the war in iraq, dean doesn’t - plain and simple. i support bush’s tax cuts, dean doesn’t. i supported bush’s failed attempt to change social security, dean didn’t like bush’s plan. i think with the imporved safety of our current technology that we should be open to drilling on our own land (i.e. ANWR) in an attempt to lessen our dependance on foreign oil. as for Murtha, i have absolutely no problem with him voicing his opinion on what we should be doing in the war. what i do have a problem with is his convicting the soliders of coldblooded murder BEFORE he knew all the facts. opposing the war is fine, premature conviction of our soliders in the press is not. wait until all the facts are in, wait until after a trail - then make your determiniation (i think ALL of our soliders have earned that much, at the very least)
By Zack
July 25, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
John,
You recently mocked the proverbial lady from the country who didn’t like to talk about, as you put it, “s-e-x.” I’ve got news for you, buddy. She’s right. Whether you like it or not, and/or whether you want to admit it or not, our culture, which refers to sex all the time, is hurting individuals in the process. We live in an immoral, impure society, and you like to sit back and mock those who live in a different manner. Go ahead and make your typical adolescent insults if you choose to. You’re not hurting me, but you are hurting yourself as you continue and continue to refuse to mature.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
i will tell you what i disagree with dean on.
I don’t think the question was “what do you disagree with him on”…it was “what makes him looney”. Which you answered with, basically: “That clip I saw of him screaming”. So, you’re really telling us is that your political opinion of someone has been shaped by a mud-slinging propaganda machine and not any real understanding of political differences.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
What Blog is Zack reading?
By GOB
July 25, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
You recently mocked the proverbial lady from the country who didn’t like to talk about, as you put it, “s-e-x.” I’ve got news for you, buddy. She’s right. Whether you like it or not, and/or whether you want to admit it or not, our culture, which refers to sex all the time, is hurting individuals in the process. We live in an immoral, impure society, and you like to sit back and mock those who live in a different manner. Go ahead and make your typical adolescent insults if you choose to. You’re not hurting me, but you are hurting yourself as you continue and continue to refuse to mature.
That was timely…
By NetBanker
July 25, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
Cuz our prez is a christian and he wouldn’t lie to us! Just like Ralph Reed was truthful about the casino work and all the televanglists who got caught in sex scandals didn’t lie about those either. Haven’t we figured out that there is zero correlation between one’s religious affiliation and one’s propensity for truthfulness?
By Amelia
July 25, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
Mara, I’m not from around here but my former country had what was once called “the perfect dictatorship” and we held what I will say with tongue in cheek, democratic elections.
By Tom
July 25, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
Just a thought, but I would think that a self-respecting professional journalist would want to respect the governements wishes if what was to be broadcasted meant any harm to the people. But that’s just me talking. Who knows what really goes on in the government? you know that won’t tell you much anyway.
By Tom
July 25, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
Just a thought, but I would think that a self-respecting professional journalist would want to respect the governements wishes if what was to be broadcasted meant any harm to the people. But that’s just me talking. Who knows what really goes on in the government? you know that won’t tell you much anyway.
By Will Jones
July 25, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
Nixon made a “comeback” after writing three DIFFERENT places and ways he “learned” of JFK’s assassination…when, in fact, he was in the passenger cabin of an airplane waiting to take-off at Love Field when the captain announced the news.
Not coincidentally George H.W. Bush, whose father Prescott was Nixon’s mentor after having acted as Rome and Rockefellers’ money conduit to Hitler (Google: “Prescott Thyssen Auschwitz”), just came out and denied any recollection of his whereabouts upon hearing of JFK’s murder even though two FBI memos place him in the organization a Federal Court Jury determined committed the crime (Hunt v. Liberty Lobby) and within range of the hit trying to “establish” an “after the fact” alibi by calling the Houston FBI office with a “suspicious tip” 75 minutes AFTER the assassination.
Brains, anyone? Integrity, anyone? Genuine patriotism, anyone?
Bush2, in keeping with his family’s four generations of service as Vatican-banker Rockefeller-lieutenants, has taken his place as overt agent of the “real anti-Christ” Thomas Jefferson pointed out so long ago…”an engine for enslaving mankind.”
Bush, in addition to his “overnights” with homosexual prostitute “Jeff Gannon,” DID 9-11. See above references for confirmation…IF YOU CARE.
…but do go on with “less meaningful” drivel.
By Amelia
July 25, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Does anyone remember Oral Roberts and his Tower to God? If the flock didn’t send millions of dollars to Mr. Roberts God was going to “call him home”. Many of those that sent money to Oral, who I think is very much alive, are part of the republican “base”. That is really really scary.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
…but do go on with “less meaningful” drivel.
I actually could feel brain cells dying as I read this.
By GOB
July 25, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Bush, in addition to his “overnights” with homosexual prostitute “Jeff Gannon,” DID 9-11. See above references for confirmation…IF YOU CARE.
Well done, sir…
By Knibb High Principal
July 25, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Mr. Jones, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
By Will Jones
July 25, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
58,000 died because traitors killed JFK six-weeks after he ordered us out of Vietnam.
Thousands of us and tens of thousands of innocents have died in Iraq because we’re permitting a closet-queen draft-dodging megalomaniac from an obviously anti-Chirst family to get away with committing 9-11 against us…
AND THAT’S THE BEST YOU CAN COME BACK WITH?
By Joe L.
July 25, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
What is really funny is that Dean was initially unpopular with the party because he was considered by many to be a Republican-in-Dems-clothing - he was considered too far right (and no it’s not a sign that the Dems are WAY left). But the press and the right wing propaganda machine has taken someone on the right side of the party and turned him into a “liberal loony”.
It’s also really funny that in the truth of the political spectrum both Dems and Repubs lie right of center. There is absolutely no leftist representation in this country.
Finally to reflect what some others have said here I mentioned to someone the other day that it was sad that peace is now a “liberal loony” position. Since when did wanting peace become crazy and extreme? I mean pure pacifism is a radical position in our culture, but wanting peace! I have always believed we should strive for peace, but be prepared for war.
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
mara - if 1/3 of dems want a pro-war candidate, and 1/3 don’t care, that means the remaining 1/3 wants an anti-war candidate. if only 1/3 of a party that generally represents 30% of the population is in favor of something, then you’re talking about roughly 10% of the population. throw in some moderates, and maybe you have 15% of the population at the time that was ardently anti-war. that many not fit your definition of fringe, but it’s pretty close.
perhaps my circle of friends distorted my view, but i don’t remember seeing that many anti-war people at the beginning of 04. toss in the fact that a number of politicians that i would have expected to be anti-war turned out not to be (again, at the time), and hence my view on it being a fringe viewpoint (and dean a fringe player) in early 04.
you might certainly disagree with me, but i don’t believe there’s any gaping hole in my reasoning.
gotta run. later all.
By Joe L.
July 25, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
What is really funny is that Dean was initially unpopular with the party because he was considered by many to be a Republican-in-Dems-clothing - he was considered too far right (and no it’s not a sign that the Dems are WAY left). But the press and the right wing propaganda machine has taken someone on the right side of the party and turned him into a “liberal loony”.
It’s also really funny that in the truth of the political spectrum both Dems and Repubs lie right of center. There is absolutely no leftist representation in this country.
Finally to reflect what some others have said here I mentioned to someone the other day that it was sad that peace is now a “liberal loony” position. Since when did wanting peace become crazy and extreme? I mean pure pacifism is a radical position in our culture, but wanting peace! I have always believed we should strive for peace, but be prepared for war.
By GOB
July 25, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
AND THAT’S THE BEST YOU CAN COME BACK WITH?
I think your arguments are just too well-reasoned to argue with. I dont know that any of us have the brain power to dispute such winners as “closet-queen draft-dodging megalomaniac from an obviously anti-Chirst family to get away with committing 9-11 against us….”
It is simply too good.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
58,000 died because traitors killed JFK six-weeks after he ordered us out of Vietnam.
Thousands of us and tens of thousands of innocents have died in Iraq because we’re permitting a closet-queen draft-dodging megalomaniac from an obviously anti-Chirst family to get away with committing 9-11 against us…
AND THAT’S THE BEST YOU CAN COME BACK WITH?
Oh, keep it coming. I’m sure we’ll have something better for your delusional ramblings and Kicked-in-the-head-as-a-child-by-a-mule insanity.
Though, you should really be more focused. I can’t tell exactly which groups you hate…right now it seems to be ALL of them. You should pick one or two groups for your unreasoning bigotry and go with that.
Work on that, OK, and then get back to us?
By Joe L.
July 25, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
Bla - If Dean was opposed to the Iraq war because he was opposed to war in general, that’s a lefist position. If he was opposed to the Iraq war because it diverted resources to a fiscally irresponsible boondoggle and away from destroying terrorists and away from say invading Iran and North Korea, it would be a right wing position. Do you see that opposition to the war in and of itself is not “left”?
Dean’s opposition was an opposition to a useless war that would accomplish nothing worthwhile for our country, just the contrary. This does not make him left or right, just smart.
By Jack
July 25, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Pretty far out there Mr. Jones.
By Mara
July 25, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Kyle - I’m perfectly ok with having Dean as head of the DNC. You see, I do familiarize myself with the opinions and views of those I consider for public office. I know, for example, that Dean balanced the state budget as governor and fiscal responsibility is a big thing with him. I know that under his watch, every child in Vermont had access to free medical care. I know that he favored “civil unions” over “gay marriage”. I know he believes in the right to privacy, a clean environment, and corporate accountability. (How’s that for what the Republicans think is “fringe”?)
He’s familiar with modern technology, knows the netroots and understands that the internet isn’t “a series of tubes” to be regulated and sold off to the highest bidder. His job is to raise money, conceive winning stratagies, and energize fellow democrats. He does this quite well. Though some of his views are a bit more liberal than I would be willing to go, he is unafraid to speak up and speak out. If his phrasing is a bit blunt, all the better IMO.
I find it incredibly unfortunate that so many in the electorate are like you, way too willing to believe the pundits. And not at all curious about whether they’re telling the truth or not. It’s gotten to the point that whomever has the better liars lying for them has a great chance of comming out the winner. It is incumbant on all of us to be familiar with the people we are considering voting for. It’s our responsibility as voters. Had more conservatives cared enough about America to actually look at Bushs’ record….well, water under the bridge I suppose.
anyway, didn’t mean to get on my soapbox and campaign for Mr. Dean…
By Tom
July 25, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Just curious…I haven’t seen much of any answers to this columns question and I am interested in what people have to say about it. Anybody care to put a simple answer out there?
By Tom
July 25, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Just curious…I haven’t seen much of any answers to this columns question and I am interested in what people have to say about it. Anybody care to put a simple answer out there?
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
Do you see that opposition to the war in and of itself is nt “left”?
of course.
do you see that i wasn’t arguing whether or not howard dean is left or right.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Just curious…I haven’t seen much of any answers to this columns question and I am interested in what people have to say about it. Anybody care to put a simple answer out there?
I’m not big on simple answers, being that life and the world isn’t really simple. A little basic reading comprehension should give you the answers you seek, assuming you can handle nuance.
I’m guessing that you are probably not much on shades of gray, however, given your earlier comment that the press should do what the government tells it to. Suggests to me you failed civics class.
By Billy
July 25, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Bla, I think your math is — well — fuzzy. I mean, here in Georgia, one of the reddest states in the Union, at least 30% of the electorate will vote for the Democratic candidate in a statewide election. The vote is usually split pretty much down the middle on nationwide elections. I hardly think that all the Republicans in office were elected by a margin of 70%-30%.
Secondly, yes, many Democrats may have favored a pro-war candidate in 2004. But what was that poll assessing? Candidates or a Commander-in-Chief? Many Democrats believed they would not be able to win without a pro-war candidate, something that would appeal more to the middle, as well as to the jingoistic fervor permeating the clueless. They may have said they would prefer a pro-war candidate to an anti-war candidate even though they themselves were anti-war simply because they believed a pro-war candidate would have a better chance at winning.
Lastly, I don’t doubt that you didn’t see many anti-war people at the beginning of 2004. They were all probably confined to “free speech zones” out of public view. I was anti-war. My dad was anti-war. We still are. And almost all of the people I personally know who supported the war have since decided that the whole thing was a huge clusterfuck.
By Joe L.
July 25, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Um yet you were arguing the he was leftist merely on the basis that he was “anti-war”. Your own words:
“he won favor for his ardent opposition to iraq and his ability to build a groundswell with like-minded, mostly anti-war liberals through the use of the internet and blogs.”
I’m pointing out to you that being against the Iraq war and being far-left liberal are not connected.
By Mara
July 25, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Tom, I suggest you scroll up and read yesterdays posts. Basically the consensus seems to be ONLY IF THE SECURITY NEED CAN BE PROVEN LEGITIMATE.
By Kyle
July 25, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
“I don’t think the question was “what do you disagree with him on”…it was “what makes him looney”. Which you answered with, basically: “That clip I saw of him screaming”. So, you’re really telling us is that your political opinion of someone has been shaped by a mud-slinging propaganda machine and not any real understanding of political differences.”
-John…ok, let’s try this again. i never said his issues made him loney. the point that i was trying to get across (and it was obviously a poor attempt) was that his media image takes away from any points he puts forth, valid as they may be. he lost control in one speech and it snowballed to turn him into a loon in the eyes of the public - largly as a result of the media’s efforts. so, i guess the answer to your question of what makes him a loon is a little bit of his personality and a lot of the media. but the unjust part is that in politics perception very often equals reality in the mind of many voters. bottom line, it seems someone else would be better suited to run the dems party. as for my personal political opinion of him, well, that’s why i listed some issues that i disagree with him on - and it had nothing to do with “a mud-slinging propaganda machine” and everything to do with, “an understanding of political differences.”
Joe L. - i have heard dean described as a “Republican-in-Dems-clothing” in that dean is largely a fiscal conservative, and i like that about him. also, i don’t agree with anyone who says that wanting peace is a crazy and extreme position. i, like i hope everyone else, want peace. but i think we have to be realistic in our pursuit of peace. if we simply leave terrorsits alone, or call a cease fire, or whatever, terrorists/dictators will simply regroup and continue to plan attacks on innocent people around the world. these people must be confronted sooner or later in order to have any real hope for peace.
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Do you see that opposition to the war in and of itself is nt “left”?
of course.
do you see that i wasn’t arguing whether or not howard dean is left or right.
By Tom
July 25, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Mara…thank you. I expected a sarcastic comment from the72John as that is all he is here for. he, apparently has no where to be other than here messing up everybody’s concentration with his meaningless chatter. I have yet to see any substance to any one of his postings I have ever read, and he has posted many on this and other columns. Kinda sad really, if you think about it. But alas, I am here to read and converse with intellectual people. I can pretty much tell you exactly what 72John will do next. He will copy and paste a quote from me and try to make some mockery out of it with a meaningless sarcastic comment. It seems that he is here all day everyday doing nothing but spouting off usless, innane drivel. So, thank you to everyone else out there who actually want to discuss and have a healthy debate without the use of anger and sarcasm. It is very much appreciated.
Go 72john…I know you have “something” to say.
By Billy
July 25, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
Just curious…I haven’t seen much of any answers to this columns question and I am interested in what people have to say about it. Anybody care to put a simple answer out there?
Ok, how’s this…
Yes.
Yes, they should. If the government can put forth a legitimate argument that the story will cause significant problems to national security. That’s a biiig if. And the media have shown self-restraint in these situations. Well, except for Geraldo giving away troop movements on Faux News.
By Tom
July 25, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
Thank you Billy. I agree with you that it would be appropriate IF the government could/would give us a TRUTHFUL answer as to what the issue is. My basic problem with it all is the media since they don’t particularly portray things as they actually are at times but embellish the story to increase ratings which increases their revenue. That ($$) is the bottom line and that is most unfortunate.
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
joe - that quote of mine that you’re posting in no way argues that dean is a lefty or righty based on his opposition to the war.
where did i say that dean = leftist bc he was anti-war?
billy - ??? i was talking about anti-war democrats. registered dems tend to make up about 30% of the population, nationwide. that doesn’t mean that the gop wins elections 70%-30%, or that everybody else is a republican because obviously not everyone is registered to a party.
however, if about 1/3 of a group that is generally 30% of the population believes X, it’s pretty easy math to figure out that 10% of the whole population believes X. hopefully that clarifies things for you.
were you ever confined to a free speech zone?
By Mara
July 25, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
Billy - how did you and Bla miss those massive anti-war protests in the beginning of ‘03? Almost 500,000 in NYC, tens of thousands in LA, San Fran, Colorado Springs, Seattle, Phillie, and yes, even here in Atlanta…and those were just the ones in the U.S! The march in Rome is considered to have been the largest anti-war rally in the history of the world.
By NetBanker
July 25, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
To put my additional $.02 in about Dean…what really rubs me raw about that whole situation is that he was the first Dem in far too long who connected with people, had ideas, and was re-engergizing the party. That his usefulnes is still questioned due to a media blip is frustrating. This seems to have happened more to those the Republicans have targeted than others. Dick Cheney shot someone for god’s sakes and yet he hasn’t been labeled an incompetent or ineffective because he can’t aim a gun. Look at how the moniker of Flip-flop Kerry stuck even though the President had changed his position on a number of items. I do think it comes down to people WANT a simple message which is what the Republicans tend to deliver while the Dems get caught in the grey zone.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
I can pretty much tell you exactly what 72John will do next. He will copy and paste a quote from me and try to make some mockery out of it with a meaningless sarcastic comment
Why, how did you know! Except I won’t “try” to make mock of you, and my sarcasm is rarely meaningless.
I have yet to see any substance to any one of his postings I have ever read, and he has posted many on this and other columns. Kinda sad really
What’s actually “kinda sad” is the fact that you can read an entire day’s worth of discussion on a particular topic and fail to understand what people’s various opinions on that topic are. What’s “kinda sad” is that you think that asking for a yes-or-no answer to a question that has already been roundly discussed constitutes “healthy debate”.
Back to McDonalds for you - I hear they’re missing their fry cook.
By Toad
July 25, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
Blab, in Georgia voters don’t register with a party so the only basis for who is a Dem and who is a Rep would be votes cast. Even in a primary, as we know, you can elect either a R or D ballot.
By Tom
July 25, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
ahhh 72John didn’t disappoint me. As i knew he wouldn’t due to his lack of a life. Anyway, as I have stated before, this is an opinion article, not a forum for hate-mongers such as Mr. john here. But alas, there is a dark side to free speech and he is the poster boy for it. Actually the sad thing is that since he is of value to Our Lord, he actually does have something of value to contribute to society as well as this column but chooses to come here to make a mockery of all who post. Back to more intellectual discussions. i’ve wasted enough time on him. I shall let the Lord sort out his anger issues. (I know I’ll get a reply to this one if none other.)
By Jack
July 25, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Anyone remember what happened at Kent State?
By The72John
July 25, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
Just looking back at a couple of polls from early 2003 - 29% of Americans opposed going to war with Iraq, 59% believed we should give inspectors more time, 63% thought we should wait for allies, 56% thought we should wait for the UN to authorize invasion…
That hardly sounds like Dean’s opinion on the war was “fringe”, by whatever definition you use.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/13/opinion/polls/main540574.shtml
By The72John
July 25, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
Back to more intellectual discussions. i’ve wasted enough time on him
Seriously, let us know when you start being intellectual, OK Christer?
By GOB
July 25, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
Dick Cheney shot someone for god’s sakes and yet he hasn’t been labeled an incompetent or ineffective because he can’t aim a gun.
Not only that, he actually got the guy he shot in the face to apologize to him on national tv…
By Mara
July 25, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
John - that was my point waaaayyy up thread, but you made it much better than I :^)
Once you moved from “for the war/against the war” into actual nuance, the perception of fringiness disappears.
By GOB
July 25, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Just curious…I haven’t seen much of any answers to this columns question and I am interested in what people have to say about it. Anybody care to put a simple answer out there?
Tom - If you had read the first 10-15 post at the beginning of the blog, you would have gotten your answer. Odd that when you choose to be lazy and not read that it’s someone else’s fault for calling you on it. Unless of course you think the blog should consist of yes/no answers only.
By Tom
July 25, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
Christer…never heard that one. I kinda like it. Makes me proud to be one.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Not only that, he actually got the guy he shot in the face to apologize to him on national tv…
Only one of the signs proving that he is, in fact, a child of the nether realms.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
Christer…never heard that one. I kinda like it. Makes me proud to be one.
Yes, I’m sure the SS was proud to be called “Nazi”, too.
By kimberly
July 25, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
Jack, I was too young to remember, but wasn’t that: Tin Soldiers and Nixon’s coming. We’re finally on our own. This summer I hear the drumming. Four dead in O-hio. Four dead in O-hio. Were you there? What happened?
By Joe L.
July 25, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
Kyle - But admit it, when someone says “peace” or “anti-war” the general connotation or connection is “liberal”. And that’s just crazy. I’m generally a hawk and fully understand the need for force but I’m opposed to the Iraq war. I also understand that a lot of problems in this world, and terrorism is one of them, will not be solved with bullets and bombs. If killing one terrorist creates two more are you really advancing your cause or making the world safer?
Even many of Dean’s social stances are conservative. It’s not Dean that advanced the whole civil unions thing in Vermont. I have friends that lived in Vermont and are definitely liberal and none of them liked Dean.
By Toad
July 25, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Actually the discussions today have been for the most part civil without name calling and people have been sticking to issues. One of my favorite made-up words is “sarchasm” meaning the gap between my sarcasm and your getting my sarcasm.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
Actually the discussions today have been for the most part civil without name calling and people have been sticking to issues. One of my favorite made-up words is “sarchasm” meaning the gap between my sarcasm and your getting my sarcasm.
And oh, the gulf is soooo wide for some people.
By Kelly
July 25, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
watching “the video” would be a great way to keep teens from engaging in pre-marital sex. BY BLABLABLA
Why don’t we make them watch “Silent Scream” or “Eclipse of Reason” which shows an abortion to help prevent abortions. It would certainly make them think twice about pre-marital sex (like the birth video) and having abortions.
By Renee
July 25, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Joe L. - I would have to slightly disagree with you, and not just because I am living here in Vermont. While Howard Dean may not have been a “driving force” in obtaining civil unions, he was certainly very helpful towards obtaining the goal. Reading his article in the advocate and his comments in speeches regarding civil unions, I found to be quite positive to say the least. He could have easily opposed civil unions, and I wouldn’t say that he just “went along with the majority” because he’s a very in your face type of guy (at least in my opinion) and doesn’t just go along with anything.
By Toad
July 25, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Kent State — my 16th birthday. Students protesting the Vietnam War were shot at by the National Guard. Four students were shot dead.
By Kyle
July 25, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
“Kyle - But admit it, when someone says “peace” or “anti-war” the general connotation or connection is “liberal”. And that’s just crazy.”
-Joe L…no argument here. that is the general perception in our culture today, and its unfortunate. but this perception can also be turned against the conservatives as well. if “liberals” are identified with “peace”, then it follows that “conservatives” are identified as “warmongers,” which is also unfortunate. i don’t think all liberals are panzies or that all conservatives want war. i truely believe that everyone wants peace - they just disagree on how to get there.
“I’m generally a hawk and fully understand the need for force but I’m opposed to the Iraq war. I also understand that a lot of problems in this world, and terrorism is one of them, will not be solved with bullets and bombs.”
-ahhh, but if you lay down your arms and they don’t, what good does that do? we came long for peace talks all we want, but if the terrorists ultimate goal is the destruction to all non-believers then those peace talks will be nothing but an illusion. i am not quite ready to conceed the fact that “killing one terrorist creates two more,” but i do have a question for you. if you don’t believe we should confront these terrorists, then what would you have us do? terrorists were not confronted all through the late eighties and ninties and they attacked innocent people all over the world.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Why don’t we make them watch “Silent Scream” or “Eclipse of Reason” which shows an abortion to help prevent abortions. It would certainly make them think twice about pre-marital sex (like the birth video) and having abortions.
Well, I’ve never heard of the second, but Silent Scream, as most people already know, has been debunked as a hoax and a fraud.
But hey - any chance to rant and rave about abortion - go for it!
By Kelly
July 25, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
Well, I’ve never heard of the second, but Silent Scream, as most people already know, has been debunked as a hoax and a fraud. BY THE 72 JOHN
Actually, it was real. But you could not argue with “Eclipse of Reason” because there’s no way it could have been faked. A baby is pulled out piece by piece and they used a camera inserted through the “mother’s” navel. No way it could be fake.
But hey - any chance to rant and rave about abortion - go for it! BY THE 72 JOHN
Okay, so where did you read any rants or raves? I must have missed those posts. Sorry.
By Kaka19312
July 25, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven’t been up to much these days. I just don’t have much to say right now. I can’t be bothered with anything , but whatever.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
Actually, it was real. But you could not argue with “Eclipse of Reason” because there’s no way it could have been faked. A baby is pulled out piece by piece and they used a camera inserted through the “mother’s” navel. No way it could be fake.
Actually, no, it wasn’t real. Look it up. On non-Christian fanatic websites.
Okay, so where did you read any rants or raves? I must have missed those posts. Sorry.
Basically, the fact that you randomly interject abortion into the conversation indicates that you are a fanatic prone to ranting and raving.
By Jackie
July 25, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
kelly-Hon, anytime you mention the word abortion it’s called a “rant”. You have to be FOR abortion on demand or else you are a bigot or a religious nut. Get with the program. You have NO right to disagree…you must be politically correct at all times! Don’t forget.
By Toad
July 25, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
VERY FEW abortions are perfomed where a baby (sic) is pulled out piece by piece.
By Jackie
July 25, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
72 JOHN IS A LUNATIC!
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this
Once you moved from “for the war/against the war” into actual nuance, the perception of fringiness disappears.
you guys might be right. i guess it just didn’t seem that way at the time.
By Joe L.
July 25, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
Terrorists weren’t confronted in the 80’s and 90’s? Not true at all. And the problem is we aren’t confronting terrorists now. If you think that’s what Iraq is about you are sorely mistaken. As a matter of fact I don’t think we have done a single thing to diminish the threat of terror in about 3 years now. Only increased terrorism.
As I said before for the most part all military action will do is create twice as many terrorists and enemies as it destroys. Why do you think Iran is clamoring for nuclear weapons now? When the scariest guy on the block kicks in your neighbors door do you give him your TV or do you buy a gun? Iran’s buying a gun.
Terrorism can only be defeated as a philosophy. You don’t kill terrorists you kill terrorism. And as long as people have nothing to live for they have plenty to fight for.
By Jack
July 25, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this
I was in the jungle when that went down.
By Joe L.
July 25, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this
So a woman who decided to have an abortion agreed to the extraneous and medically unnecessary step of having a camera inserted laproscopically? Highly unlikely. I already smell a fake.
By Kaka17436
July 25, 2006 11:31 PM | Link to this
Not much on my mind. I don’t care. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me , but shrug. Whatever. I feel like a void.
By Mara
July 26, 2006 07:55 AM | Link to this
trust the wackos to bring up abortion in a discussion about the responsibilities of journalists.
It would certainly make them think twice about pre-marital sex
If it’s enough to terrify the un-wed into abstinence, what makes them think that the I-Do’s are gonna wipe that phobia out of their phsyches? Who cares if grown adults have intercourse without being married? What part of “it’s none of you effing business” do these people not get?!
By GOB
July 26, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this
What part of “it’s none of you effing business” do these people not get?!
But Mara, they are only looking out for all of our souls…
By Renee
July 26, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
I still can’t understand how abortion came up in this discussion. But its neither suprising nor worth a intelligent comment!!
72 JOHN IS A LUNATIC!
This comes from someone who has offered nothing substantial or of meaning to the conversation and comes from left field to defend an obvious rant! I see how you could easily identify a lunatic.
Joe, your 5:10 was exactly what I was thinking!
By Renee
July 26, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
I just got this via email today, and it’s too good not to share (since we’re talking about saving souls)
click here
Turn the sound down on your computer!
By Amelia
July 26, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
By Mara
July 26, 2006 07:55 AM | Link to this
trust the wackos to bring up abortion in a discussion about the responsibilities of journalists.
Because unfortunately that is the sum total of their existence and their political interest. The tragic thing is that this group has hi-jacked our government. 2006 and 2008 will be the best chance that moderates in this country will ever have to take this country back from the right wing of the republican party. It’s way past time for this vocal minority of wingwacks to be the ones on the outside looking in instead of vice versa. Until the ideologues are defeated, no meaningful issue that confronts this nation will ever be dealt with. When the republicans cannot count on the mobilization of their brigades of xenophobes,homophobes,nativists,and anti-abortion fanatics everytime an election rolls around then maybe they will have to return to being real conservatives again. Until we the people do what needs to be done, there is absolutely no incentive for the republican party to do that. The neutralization of the right wing ideologues as a political force must be accomplished. The 2006 elections will tell us alot about how serious moderates are about taking back this country.
By lozen
July 26, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
Oh, my gosh Mara. You don’t mean to say you think it’s okay for people to have sex do you? You can’t mean that! S-E-X is so bad. It is only allowable while holding a marriage license in your hands during “the act”. Or at least in a bed with your marriage license hanging over you on the wall. Every sexual union must be blessed by the church (or a justice of the peace)! What is wrong with you girl? And the problem is we aren’t confronting terrorists now. If you think that’s what Iraq is about you are sorely mistaken. I know that’s the truth, Joe. I read recently that Bush quietly shut down the agency responsible for getting Bin Laden; that could be old news. Anybody know anything about that?
By GOB
July 26, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Lozen - I think it was more of a task force than an agency, but it is still pretty disconcerting. There were some stories circulating right after Zarqawi was killed that the US cut a deal with someone higher up in Al-queda to cut back the pursuit of Bin Laden if they would give us Zarqawi. The task force was shut down about a week later. Who knows if there is any truth to that at all, but I wouldnt be shocked to find out there is.
By GenHalftrack
July 26, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Does anyone here actually believe that Osama is still alive? Or that he will become “dead” right around the 06 elections. DNA evidence of course.
By The72John
July 26, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Hey Renee - safe for work?
By Mara
July 26, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Renee - ROTFLMAO!!! That video is hilarious! “oh! me so holy”!? puh-leeeeze!
GOB, lozen - way I heard it, Zarqawi wasn’t even that big of a fish until State inflated his resume…
and yeah, I know that to some, S-E-X is only supposed to happen when one has government sanction. But still…in a discussion about journalistic responsibility? Talk about head-shaking non sequiturs…
By Kyle
July 26, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
“And the problem is we aren’t confronting terrorists now. If you think that’s what Iraq is about you are sorely mistaken.”
-Joe L… ok, now i know your probably gonna say “iraq was about wmds not terrorism,” but if you don’t think that the war in iraq is NOW critical to the ultimate war against terrorism, and if you don’t think our troops are fighting terrorists in iraq right now - well then i think you are sorely mistaken (agree to disagree i guess).
“As a matter of fact I don’t think we have done a single thing to diminish the threat of terror in about 3 years now. Only increased terrorism.”
-as much as many of the bush haters (and i’m not saying that you fall into this category) would hate to admit it, its no accident that we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11. our country, as well as others, have been working hard to prevent attacks, and i think they’re doing a pretty good job. will there eventually be another terrorist attack on american soil? yes, i believe so. no matter how prepared you are, if someone is willing to kill themselves to kill innocent people your not gonna be able to stop all of them. our efforts have “only increased terrorism?” this is a mindset/approach that i disagree with b/c it implies that we shouldn’t confront terrorism with force - at all. terrorists have always been there. they have been plotting and killing around the world long before “our efforts.” the fact that we have choosen to acknowledge this threat and defeat it is not a bad decision, in my opinion. the alternative would be to turn our heads and hope it will never affect us (which it most assuredly would).
“As I said before for the most part all military action will do is create twice as many terrorists and enemies as it destroys. Why do you think Iran is clamoring for nuclear weapons now? When the scariest guy on the block kicks in your neighbors door do you give him your TV or do you buy a gun? Iran’s buying a gun.”
-are you kidding me - its the US’s fault that Iran is run by a lunatic that is attempting to get nukes? So if nothing ever happened in Iraq then Iran would love America and not be trying to build up their weapons? i don’t buy this at all. i suppose the current state of north korea is somehow the bush administration’s fault as well.
“Terrorism can only be defeated as a philosophy. You don’t kill terrorists you kill terrorism. And as long as people have nothing to live for they have plenty to fight for.”
-now this i can somewhat agree with. ultimately, to completely wipe out terrorism you must defeat it as a philosophy - i agree. but the problem is that you can’t exactly sit down and talk reasonably with the existing terrorists. they will lie, plot against you, and eventually attack you b/c they’re ultimate goal is your destruction. a life of poverty and oppression only breeds terrorists, but that is what we are trying to change. by killing and clearing out enough terrorists to the point where is could be possible to instill a functioning democracy and giving people opportunity hopefully they will be less likely to choose a terrorist lifestyle - that is why a functioning democracy in iraq would be such a threat to the terrorist philosophy.
-like i said in my last post yesterday - we both want the same thing in the end, we just disagree how to get there.
By Renee
July 26, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
John, yes, it just has sound. Nothing obscene or anything like that.
By Amelia
July 26, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Kyle, what if the invasion of Iraq was planned prior to 9/11. Would it still be about terrorism if that be the case? Or something else? Just asking.
By Renee
July 26, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
Mara - glad you enjoyed it. I was cracking up at work. It wouldn’t be half as funny if it wasn’t real….LMAO
By The72John
July 26, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
as much as many of the bush haters (and i’m not saying that you fall into this category) would hate to admit it, its no accident that we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11
This is terrible logic. There’s an old joke about a beatnick on a street corner snapping his fingers. A man asks him why, and he says “To keep the Elephants away”. The man says “But there aren’t any Elephants…” to which the Beatnick replies “See, it’s working”. Does the phrase “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.” mean anything to you?
It’s also rather childish to use the phrase “bush-haters”. I DO dislike Bush, because I dislike every single philosophy he holds. There is nothing that he stands for that I agree with. By saying “Oh, you’re just a Bush hater”, you dismiss the fact that I and many other have legitimate reasons for despising his administration.
-are you kidding me - its the US’s fault that Iran is run by a lunatic that is attempting to get nukes? So if nothing ever happened in Iraq then Iran would love America and not be trying to build up their weapons? i don’t buy this at all. i suppose the current state of north korea is somehow the bush administration’s fault as well.
As with so many things, it’s not Bush’s fault that Iran or North Korea are run by the people who run them - though the argument could be made that the US’s involvement in the Middle East helped Ahmadinejad defeat his very pro-Western, pro-Reform opponent in the Iranian election, thus precipitating the current situation. No - it’s Bush’s reaction to the situation that is at fault. His unwillingess to offer a single concession, or to recognize that nations like Iran and North Korea are acting as much out of pride and fear as out of any real desire to use weapons.
“Terrorism can only be defeated as a philosophy. You don’t kill terrorists you kill terrorism. And as long as people have nothing to live for they have plenty to fight for.”
I want to point out that terrorism isn’t a philosophy - it’s a method. Historicaly it’s been used by weak opponents against strong opponents, and I don’t see that changing. What we need to overcome is the kind of extremist philosophies that drive ordinary men and women to become violent. And as Joe has pointed out, we are never going to do that by going to war with middle eastern countries.
Instead, every picture of an Iraqi civillian corpse burned to death - whether the actual perpetrator was a stray US bomb or an Iraqi insurgent - is going to incite anger in the people who most likely to be swayed by the rhetoric of the radical Islamists and create more terrorists.
We simply can not fight philosophy through conventional warfare - we have to eliminate the conditions that drive people to become terrorists in the first place. Poverty, lack of opportunity, anger over the treatment of other muslims, whether accurately perceived or not - these are the things that drive people to join Al-qaeda and similar groups.
Do you really think that by waging war on Islamic countries, we are going to slow the flow? Statistically, there have been more terrorist attacks world-wide after 9/11 than before. The recruitment numbers for Al-qaeda and similar groups are higher than ever before. Do you REALLY think the war on terror is WORKING?
By GOB
July 26, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
as much as many of the bush haters (and i’m not saying that you fall into this category) would hate to admit it, its no accident that we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11
Homer: Ah, not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm! Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, honey. Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away! Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work? Lisa: It doesn’t work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around here, do you? Homer: Lisa, I’d like to buy your rock.
By GOB
July 26, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
Damn formatting…
By NetBanker
July 26, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
its the US’s fault that Iran is run by a lunatic that is attempting to get nukes? Kyle…Yes, actually it likely is our fault. It was U.S. support for the Shah of Iran and his oppressive regime that resulted in the revolution there that brought the Islamists to power and made the U.S. “The Great Satan”. Much the same way that our support of Saddam brought him to power in Iraq and our support of the freedom fighters in Afghanistan (who were battling the Russians) resulted in the Taliban and Afghanistan becoming a terrorist stronghold. There is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that U.S. meddling and prior ‘regime change’ efforts have resulted in the current situation.
U.S. military analysis of Iraq states that our efforts to fight the terrorists over there has done nothing but provide recruiting material for even more terrorists. You need to consider the anti-Zionist and anti-West mindset that has been preached to the Arab populations. They do not live in a free society as do we so their governments and religious institutions have been free to control the media and messages to which people are exposed. A Christian nation invading the country that contains the majority of the most holy sites in all of Islam is easily viewed and portrayed as an attack on Islam itself. This in turn is easily spun into a reason to join the fight against the Western Invaders. Kyle, we couldn’t have helped the recruiting effort of terrorist groups any more than if we’d filmed the tapes, printed the materials, and distributed them ourselves.
What is even worse is that Iraq has become a live theatre training ground. Haven’t you noticed the increasing sophistication of the IED’s and better organization of attacks. We haven’t been able to control the borders so terrorists in training sneak in, join the fight, get real experience on successful tactics, and then sneak back out smarter and with better skills than could ever be acquired in an isolated camp.
Gotta run, but will try to get back to the lack of attack on U.S. This may have more to do with the fact that the terrorists did not follow the Quaranic rules set out for attack in the 9/11 attacks and are now doing so.
By Archie
July 26, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
We haven’t been attacked again because we’re using millions of dollars to fight a gang. Imagine using millions of dollars to fight gangs in Atlanta the way this administration is fighting the war on terror. You really have to get someone that’s psychologically-challenged to commit suicide in another country. I also dislike Bush’s philosophy but hate is too strong to describe my feelings about him.
By Mara
July 26, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Kyle - our efforts have “only increased terrorism?” this is a mindset/approach that i disagree with b/c it implies that we shouldn’t confront terrorism with force
it’s not that we shouldn’t confront terrorist with force, but that we should confront the right terrorists with the right kind of force. Al-Qaeda attacked us. Fine. Why in da hell did we attack Saddam? What rationale would you give for Bush deciding that finding and eliminating the Al Qaeda leadership didn’t require every resource we had? Up to, and including diplomacy? I know that to a lot of Bush supporters “diplomacy” is a dirty word, the very mantra of weak-kneed libruls, but it too can be weilded as a weapon. Bush tossed the international sympathy and assurances of cooperation aside with a sneer and an insult. Wouldn’t you say that it’s not a good idea to discard any viable weapon while fighting a war?
And according to the the 2004 State Department’s annual Patterns of Global Terrorism Report (realeased in 2005)- global terror attacks were more than three times higher than the record levels set in 2003. So despite your perception of JoeL’s meaning, he was absolutely factual in his statement that our efforts have only contributed to the rise in terrorist strikes.
By Archie
July 26, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
We haven’t been attacked again because we’re using millions of dollars to fight a gang. Imagine using millions of dollars to fight gangs in Atlanta the way this administration is fighting the war on terror. You really have to get someone that’s psychologically-challenged to commit suicide in another country. I also dislike Bush’s philosophy but hate is too strong to describe my feelings about him.
By Mara
July 26, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
WOW!! John, GOB, Net - I respectfully bow in honor of your rebuttals of Kyle’s 10:20. I tried, but you all did such a great job that I now wish I could un-post my last comment. Well said, m’friends. Well said.
By Chilao
July 26, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
And the Israelis are breeding even more future terrorists in Lebanon at this very moment.
By lozen
July 26, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Diplomacy? Hell, no! Revenge? You daammm right! Let’s get us some revenge now, even if it’s against the wrong people. And hooooeeeeee, we can get us some oil at the same time. Somebody in the Bush camp really understands the mind of the common man and how to manipulate using fear and disinformation. It works big time.
By Joe L.
July 26, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
Kyle - We are only fighting “terrorists” in Iraq because we CREATED THEM! Obviously terrorists existed beforehand, but the majority of the terrorists we are fighting now are people that never would have been terrorists and never would have bothered the U.S. if we didn’t plop down in their backyard. Iraq never was and never will be about terrorism.
I didn’t say that we have prevented attacks from occuring just that we haven’t DIMINISHED the chance that attacks will occur. If anything we have increased that chance. We could have sat back and changed nothing (not done nothing, changed nothing) after 9/11 and the results would have been the same.
Iran’s nuclear program was in remission UNTIL we went into Iraq. When you can’t fight your opponent in a “fair” fight you find a way to stack the deck. When the greatest military power in the world decides to take matters into it’s own hand, everyone else gets scared and rightfully so. Iran had every reason to believe they needed nukes as quickly as possible, or at least the real threat of developing them to get us to back off.
I don’t think there is much doubt that almost all Americans want the same thing, the how is as important if not moreso (every heard the ends don’t justify the means?)
By Joe L.
July 26, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
“Somebody in the Bush camp really understands the mind of the common man and how to manipulate using fear and disinformation. It works big time.”
His name is Karl Rove. And there’s another guy that’s really good at manipulating minds with fear and disinformation. Couple clues - red cape, pitchfork, horns…
By The72John
July 26, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
And the Israelis are breeding even more future terrorists in Lebanon at this very moment.
Meanwhile, some idiot on the opinion page thinks that Israel should not only step up operations in Southern Lebanon, but should invade Syria as well.
I guess he just WANTS World War III.
By The72John
July 26, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Geeze, I spent two minutes looking at Wooten’s blog (I know, I know - what was I thinking) and those people are insane!
Even on this blog’s worst days, we don’t come close to the just plain-out vicious nastiness of that crew, and Wooten just roots it on.
By Joe L.
July 26, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
Actually a lot of Lebanese people are as upset at Hizbollah for what they have as the Israelis. Israel is doing what must be done for the Lebanese government to be able to succeed. So I don’t think this will cause lasting problems and may actually have a reverse effect.
By Amelia
July 26, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
Some of those guys that have suddenly appeared on Wootens blog are from that crew that ruined the Luckovich blog. They are like cancer. Once they infect a blog, it’ pretty much useless after that. And that TFTT guy is Andy from the Lucko blog.
By The72John
July 26, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
Actually a lot of Lebanese people are as upset at Hizbollah for what they have as the Israelis. Israel is doing what must be done for the Lebanese government to be able to succeed. So I don’t think this will cause lasting problems and may actually have a reverse effect.
It may ultimately help Lebanon, though I think that remains to be seen. Organizations like Hizbollah tend to be like hyrdas. However, I think that the images of dead Lebanese women and children will still be used to incite more anger against the US and Israel and create yet more terrorists.
I also have a very hard time with Israel’s justification for bombing so many civilian neighborhoods. The “But we told them to leave!” excuse does not work for me, considering how many people are not necessarily able to pack up and leave. Defending one’s borders or attacking strictly military targets is one thing. Knowingly bombing civilian neighborhoods because some terrorists are hiding there is another.
By NetBanker
July 26, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Ok, back quickly. I can’t find the article I had read by an Islamic scholar who indicated that the lack of attack may be that Osama didn’t follow the rules and caught a bunch of flak from Islamic religious leaders. Apparently there are rules of engagement (5 if I recall) that include multiple warnings, offering the chance to convert, and something else that must be satisified BEFORE you’re allowed to attack your enemy. Bin Laden satisified none of these before 9/11. Reviews of his taped message since 9/11 have been shown to be following a pattern that appears to be working through the list so that when another attack comes it will have the ‘blessing’ of Islam. It has been suggested by several scholars and intelligence agencies that we haven’t suffered another big attack primarily because all the conditions and reasonable time frames haven’t been met.
I agree that our efforts to thwart terrorist attacks have also helped protect the U.S. although to what degree is very hard to tell, but I also think that there is some level of truth to what the scholars are saying. Given the well known vulnerability of our sea ports and our borders (proved by our own agents having ‘snuck’ enough radio active material to make a serious dirty bomb through the Canadian/U.S. border) which has been published in the media, doesn’t it make you wonder why the terrorists haven’t struck again? We ARE still vulnerable so what are they waiting for? Could it truly be that the lack of another attack is primarily an illusion that members of our political class will take credit for as being 100% due to law enforcement efforts? Could it be that this illusion will be shattered once Osama has completed the Islamic pre-attack checklist and will be guaranteed free from any criticism by fellow Islamists? I’m sure this will get some responses along the lines of “do you really think that people who cut off heads believe in following any types of civilized rules?” but there is something to be said for ‘honor among thieves’ as well as being smart enough to know that when using religion as the driver for recruitment and attack that it completely behooves one to ‘follow’ the established rules to guarantee the religion you’ve highjacked has no theological basis for opposing your actions.
By Mara
July 26, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
JoeL - I don’t think this will cause lasting problems and may actually have a reverse effect.
that depends on whether the Lebonese government steps up and takes over the civil programs begun by Hezbollah. One reason that they were tolerated, even supported, was because they did more for the citizenry than their government did.
By GOB
July 26, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Geeze, I spent two minutes looking at Wooten’s blog (I know, I know - what was I thinking) and those people are insane!
You’re not kidding…
By Mark
July 26, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Plus, the newspaper darling of the far right, The Wall Street Journal, published about the same story on their web site at about the same time the NY Times published their story on the subject… but no one complains about the WSJ because that’s what all the rich fat Republican cats read. I can’t wait for Jan. when King George is finally out of office and his far right flying monkey henchmen in the congress are all voted out of office. America is finally waking up! (Unless they steal this election by disenfranchising minorities and old people like they did in 2000 and 2004).
By The72John
July 26, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
Net, I haven’t heard the “appropriate measures” theory. I’ve always basically thought that they are ignoring the US because they’ve found it more efficient to launch attacks many places around the world. More chaos, less effort. The US is already playing fairly effectively into their hands, so why spend more money than is necessary here when there are other nations to disrupt?
By Mara
July 26, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
John - It’s not like they’re targeting civilians. Hezbollah, like Hamas, stores weapons caches and locates their missile launchers among the civilian population, near hospitals, and UN observation posts. What tactics would you recommend to Israel? They can’t ignore it so they warn people and then do what needs to be done. While I, like you, deplore the loss of life, I don’t see where Isreal has many options.
By Joe L.
July 26, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
There is no way to attack Hizbollah without bombing “civilian” buildings. They don’t establish military bases removed from civilian areas. They hide in and among the civilian populace. Israel has little choice outside of warning people to leave and then attacking.
But in this case you aren’t turning moderate Lebanese or the general citizen against Israel or the U.S. The only people being stirred up are already aligned with Hizbollah and against Israel.
By Amelia
July 26, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
The day I saw Dick Cheney trashing the New York Times is the day I started reading it. And I haven’t missed a day since. If attack dog Cheney goes after them they are probably doing something right.
By Mara
July 26, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
did anyone note the shocking and completely unexpected revelation that ‘N Synch’s Lance Bass is (gasp!) GAY!?
anyone else find it sad that revealing ones sexual orientation is still considered “news”?
By The72John
July 26, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
John - It’s not like they’re targeting civilians. Hezbollah, like Hamas, stores weapons caches and locates their missile launchers among the civilian population, near hospitals, and UN observation posts. What tactics would you recommend to Israel? They can’t ignore it so they warn people and then do what needs to be done. While I, like you, deplore the loss of life, I don’t see where Isreal has many options.
I just can’t accept that logic…it IS like the “I’m swinging my fists, and if I tell you I’m swinging my fists and I still hit you, it’s your fault” logic. Geeze, I HATE using that particular example…
Israel may not be targeting civilians, but they are targeting civilian neighborhoods, with the excuse that Hizbollah members live within those neighborhoods. And yes, they are warning people beforehand, but the reports that are coming out of Lebanon indicate that in many, many cases, the people in the warned areas are unable to evacutate, largely due to the fact that Israel’s campaign against Lebanon’s infrastructure has rendered many of the highways unusable.
I agree that there is justification for Israel to carry out strikes against Hisbollah, but I can’t ignore the fact that the death toll in Lebanon is not only substantially higher than in Israel but is also full of innocent civilians. The question that must be asked when balancing morality and expediency is “Is the value of the military target I am attacking WORTH the deaths of innocent people”, and I don’t think Israel is asking that question hard enough.
They are certainly quick to point the finger when their own children are killed, but seem markedly callous and uncaring about the deaths of Lebanese or Palestinian children.
By Joe L.
July 26, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Mara - Actually I have no problem with Hizbollah (or Hamas for that matter) continuing their social services and as political parties, provided they disarm. What the Lebanese government needs to step in and take over is defense and security, not social services. Hizbollah is the representative of Sh’ite Muslims in Lebanon.
And don’t forget Hizbollah flourished in the 15 years there was no government and the country was fractured by civil war. By the time a central government (and only recently an independent government) was re-established Hizbollah had become to important to the maintenance of many necessary services.
By NetBanker
July 26, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
I think that the images of dead Lebanese women and children will still be used to incite more anger against the US and Israel and create yet more terrorists.
John this is a good point and one that illuminates a need for a shift in thought in the world. When humans finally become more angry at the terrorists for attacking helpless civilians as well as using them as shields in order to guarantee maximum loss of life then we’ll finally have a chance at defeating terrorism as a method. As it stands now Israel is getting more flak from the international community than the terrorists. What is happening to many Lebanese IS awful, but where are the negative stories comparing the terrorists to someone who surrounds himself by children in order to go on a shooting spree in a mall knowing that he can continue to kill innocent people because no one will dare attack him for fear of hurting a child? Where is the outrage from the international community at the terrorists? Why is the bulk of it directed at Israel even from European nations?
By Joe L.
July 26, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
John - Israel has only TWO choices, there is no inbetween, bomb these building or allow Hizbollah to go unchecked. There is no third choice. There are no “military” targets. You seem to act like Israel is using a false excuse to assault innocent people. But they have no other choice outside of watching their children die. They took the measures they could to diminish civilian casualties.
And while I don’t think they deserve death, don’t forget these people support and encourage Hizbollah. It’s not like they are complete removed from the organization.
I think you are looking for a perfect solution in a higly imperfect situation. It just isn’t possible.
By Chilao
July 26, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
Unless they steal this election by disenfranchising minorities and old people like they did in 2000 and 2004)
that no longer needs to be done. They have electronic balloting systems now. And when the GOP-contributing CEO of Diebold, based in Ohio and one of the prime makers of the equipment, can GUARANTEE a Bush win in Ohio/2004 BEFORE the election……enuf said.
I do not expect to ever see anything but GOP Controlled Congress and President in the future.
By Joe L.
July 26, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
NB - Israel always gets more condemnation for several reasons. One, the European countries typically have large Arab populations they are afraid of enraging. Two, Europe still has a large anti-Semite undercurrent to it. People don’t like to admit it or talk about it, but it’s true. And in this case it’s easy to hone in on the “disproportionate” response from Israel. But the truth is this is not merely t*t-for-tat retaliation.
Israel is using a legitimate assault against them to launch an operation against Hizbollah that was long overdue and necessary. It’s trying to setup the political circumstances that will allow Lebanon’s government to achieve more control without internal dissent and send a message to Syria and Iran (and other nations that they will still counter more fiercely than they are attacked).
By NetBanker
July 26, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
They are certainly quick to point the finger when their own children are killed, but seem markedly callous and uncaring about the deaths of Lebanese or Palestinian children. But the point of the attacks on Israel IS to kill innocent children. The terrorists TRY to do this. Hezbollah and Hamas rarely even go after military targets. If they don’t care about innocent human lives and in fact actively spit on the concept by attacking innocents and hiding among them then why should Israel (or anyone else fighting terrorists) be the only party that catches sh it? This is exactly what I was talking about in my last post. When we come down as hard or actually even harder in the press and in our public opinions on the terrorists for their actions and provocation than we do on the respondents then we might just have a chance at defeating terrorism as a tactic.
By Renee
July 26, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
I saw that Mara. While I agree with you on the fact that it is “news”, I didn’t see that one coming. But, then again, I never put much thought into it, lol. My daughter might be a tad interested since she was a fan during her “boy band” period.
By Archie
July 26, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
ITALIC:*The question that must be asked when balancing morality and expediency is “Is the value of the military target I am attacking WORTH the deaths of innocent people”, and I don’t think Israel is asking that question hard enough.
They are certainly quick to point the finger when their own children are killed, but seem markedly callous and uncaring about the deaths of Lebanese or Palestinian children.*
72John you are making some points I wanted to make, yes you are!
By The72John
July 26, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
Where is the outrage from the international community at the terrorists? Why is the bulk of it directed at Israel even from European nations?
At the risk of being called a “Jew-hater” - this seems to frequently happen on the Luko and Wooten blogs to anyone who doesn’t obsequiously lick the boots of Israel - I think it’s because Israel refuses to accept ANY responsibility for its situation, but instead plays the victim after every attack.
I think that both sides are soaked in blood. Both sides are to blame for this conflict, and our unilateral support of Israel does not serve our interests or the interests of peace in the middle east.
A suicide bomber kills 20 people. Israel sends in tanks and kills a Hammas fighter, colaterally killing 25 innocent Palestinians. Two more suicide bombers. Israel launches air strikes against a refugee camp and kills a few more Hammas members, and 25 more innocent Palestinians, and it goes on and on and on.
Put yourself in the Palestinian’s shoes. Let’s assume someone takes over the US tomorrow, displaces a couple of million people, and then starts moving people into the territories you’ve been pushed out into. Then, they start building walls accross your property separating you from your job, your business, your family, and making you carry identification cards to go into your own homes. You’ve got no military, and the new government has the most sophisticated military in the region. What do you think your response will be?
I’m not justifying terrorism in Israel, but I do understand why it happens. Anyone with a basic understanding of history and military conflict should understand why it happens, and should also understand that a conflict based on retribution by both sides requires that a third party stand in the middle and force the two sides involved to stop killing each other. That third party SHOULD be the US, but instead, we continue to support Israel wholeheartedly.
Disclaimer: I in no way, shape, form, or fashion am anti-semitic. I find the Jewish culture and heritage to be absolutely fascinating, even though the very idea of gefitle fish makes me slightly nauseated.
By Jack
July 26, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
It was news when it came out that Rock Hudson was gay.
By Mara
July 26, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
John - it seems to me that it’s more like “I am going to swing my fists and hit this object. If you cover this object with your body you will get hit also. For your own protection I suggest you move before I begin swinging my fists.”
And when was the last time you saw world-wide demonstrations condemning the suicide bombings and morter rounds that kill Israeli civilians? I honestly don’t recall if I’ve ever seen one.
I don’t believe any of the groups involved are particularly blameless for past atrocities but I tend to lean in Israels favor because they, at least, are ready and willing to declare peace whenever the Arabs decide to quit shooting at them.
By Renee
July 26, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
Am I the only one laughing right now!!
By Mara
July 26, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
Renee - hope she takes the news well. I recall being crushed when I found out that my teen idol was already married! :^)
By GOB
July 26, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
They have electronic balloting systems now. And when the GOP-contributing CEO of Diebold, based in Ohio and one of the prime makers of the equipment, can GUARANTEE a Bush win in Ohio/2004 BEFORE the election……enuf said.
There was really interesting story about this on This American Life on NPR. The software that the machines use is proprietary, so only someone from the company can repair them. There is also no way for the poll workers to verify that the machine is actually working properly…so much for transparent elections.
By Toad
July 26, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
In the 1980’s my pre-pubescent step-daughter wanted to marry Michael Jackson. Now that’s something she’d like to forget.
By The72John
July 26, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
In the 1980’s my pre-pubescent step-daughter wanted to marry Michael Jackson. Now that’s something she’d like to forget.
Well, if she was pre-pubescent, he probably might have liked to marry her, too.
By Chilao
July 26, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
GOB - I heard that on NPR, the whole software/machine results on a small digital camera sized card/disk, easily switchable between machine and accumulating-machine.
I stated long ago here I am certain they are strategist working on seeing that it will LOOK close, but “so, sorry, GOP again”.
By Mara
July 26, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Renee - after reading the last few posts I’ve got to say that no, you are NOT the only one laughing LOL!!!
By Jack
July 26, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
Mara. We don’t see demonstrations, we see dancing in the streets.
All we are saying….is give peace a chance. All we are saying….is give peace a chance. All we are saying….is give peace a chance. John & Yoko
By Renee
July 26, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
Mara, I thought I was the only one!!! LMAO!!!!
By The72John
July 26, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
is give peace a chance. John & Yoko
Heck, all this time I thought they were encouraging us to eat more green vegetables…
By Jack
July 26, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Children are important to terrorists only when they can be used as a tool to hurt the enemy. “Here son, strap these bombs on and get in the crowd and set them off. if you kill enough infidels, you will go to heaven”
By Toad
July 26, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Imagine there are no pesticides, genetically engineered tomatoes. Imagine all the people loving their spinach
By The72John
July 26, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
Children are important to terrorists only when they can be used as a tool to hurt the enemy.
You’re awfully good at compartmentalizing people, has anyone ever told you that, Jack? I suppose it never occured to you that most Palestinians are feeling human beings just like you are. It’s easier to de-humanize than it is to empathize, which I suppose is why we seem to love killing each other so much.
By chuck
July 26, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Hi folks, I think Israel has exactly the right idea about how to deal with terrorists and those who for whatever reason don’t want to do the right thing and give them up to the authorities. I think the U.S. ought to take the same tac in Iraq.
First make it clear that if an attack comes from a certain area, that area is going to turn to dust. Give the people in the area a certain amount of time to turn the terrorists in and then do what you said you were going to do. Surround the area to make sure no weapons are removed. Allow any who wants to leave to do so, then BLOW IT TO h e double hockey sticks. If it’s a village or a city block doesn’t matter. People will eventually turn on the terrorists who are causing their suffering and we can solve the problems. You cannot deal with terrorists like a namby pamby little girly man. THEY DON’T THINK RATIONALLY. They don’t care if they die. We should help them get to their 72 virgins.
By Mara
July 26, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
John - I saw no mention of Palestinians in Jacks post…unless you think that all Palestinians are terrorists that is.
gotta go. XXOO
By Tom
July 26, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
I just came on here and read the posts about “give peace a chance”, quoting the great john Lennon. My 2 cents on that is…peace has been given a chance, over and over and over again. These type of people do not know what peace is as we understand it. They (radical Islamics, middle eastern individuals) are born and bred to hate(particularly americans). They know nothing else because they are taught nothing else. They are taught from birth to hate and destroy america by any means necessary. However, that doesn’t excuse their behavior or the consequences that should and ultimately will experience for such horrific actions against humanity. Just thought I would share that. It was on my mind.
By The72John
July 26, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
John - I saw no mention of Palestinians in Jacks post…unless you think that all Palestinians are terrorists that is.
It was obviously in reference to my earlier post.
By The72John
July 26, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
First make it clear that if an attack comes from a certain area, that area is going to turn to dust. Give the people in the area a certain amount of time to turn the terrorists in and then do what you said you were going to do. Surround the area to make sure no weapons are removed. Allow any who wants to leave to do so, then BLOW IT TO h e double hockey sticks. If it’s a village or a city block doesn’t matter. People will eventually turn on the terrorists who are causing their suffering and we can solve the problems. You cannot deal with terrorists like a namby pamby little girly man. THEY DON’T THINK RATIONALLY. They don’t care if they die. We should help them get to their 72 virgins.
Jesus wept.
By Kyle
July 26, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
well, it seemed like you guys had a pretty interesting discussion today. i step out of the office for a few hours and miss everything. you guys had some interesting responses to my last post from this morning. while it would take way to long to respond to everyone, i have to say that i understand your views - but i still disagree somewhat and continue to argue the majority of my last post.
a few points that i remember reading that i can address quickly: 1.) the whole terrible logic thing about the no terrorists attacks - i get what you are saying, and i understand that you can’t really prove a negative. but i think the obvious hatred toward america around the world and the propensity of these groups to attack in the past is at least decent evidence that these terrorists would have had another attack on us by now if they were able to do so
2.) someone made the comment that diplomacy is a weapon against terrorism as well, and we should be using all our weapons to defeat terrorism. i couldn’t agree more - but you must be sure that the parties to these talks are genuine in their desire for peace. otherwise its just a lull in the conflict to allow the enemy to regroup
3.) as far as israel/lebanon goes, so far i agree with the comments from joe l and mara - but it is a very complicated situation (as is the whole struggle against terrorism)
By Jack
July 26, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
No not all Palestinians. No culture is 100% evil. It is never easy to kill until you are exposed to the evil of war. When you see the enemy use children as weapons, you recognize how truely evil they are and you want to send them to their maker. Even then it is still not easy, just easier to justify.
By Jack
July 26, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
and eat your vegetables. All of them. You will not leave the table until they are gone.
By TramadoL6281
July 26, 2006 06:35 PM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to anything today. I don’t care. I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. Basically not much happening right now. Maybe tomorrow. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
By Kaka85803
July 26, 2006 08:44 PM | Link to this
I just don’t have anything to say. Not that it matters. Eh. I’ve just been staying at home doing nothing, but I don’t care. That’s how it is.
By meta
July 26, 2006 09:07 PM | Link to this
Hi you have a nice homepage nokia6630
By Kaka9399
July 27, 2006 07:34 AM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to much lately. I’ve basically been doing nothing , but it’s not important. I can’t be bothered with anything recently. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me lately.
By Mara
July 27, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this
This little cut-n-paste is courtesy of David Broder. I know it’s kinda annoying, but it is directly relevant to our discussion thread yesterday regarding what is “liberal” and what is “fringe liberal”. It’s sad that his antipathy for one liberal legislator would keep him from supporting whomever is best for the country regardless of his opinion of the current crop of Republicans. A sad, sad thing.
“My weekend visitor was one of the founders of the postwar Republican Party in the South, one of those stubborn men who challenged the Democratic rule in his one-party state. He has lived long enough to see Republicans elected as senator and governor of his state and to see a Republican from the Sun Belt behemoth of Texas capture the White House. His profession won’t let him speak with his name attached, but he is sadly disillusioned.
“My wife was thrilled by the veto” Bush administered last week to the bill expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, because she shares the president’s belief that those clumps of cells destroyed in the research process represent human life. “I thought it was stupid,” he said. “I know too many people who are like this” — and he shook his hands like a victim of Parkinson’s disease — “and their only hope of a cure is in stem cells. Now Bush is forcing that science to move overseas.”
He went on: “How the hell long can they refuse to raise the minimum wage?” He was furious, he said, with the Republican leaders of Congress who keep blocking bills to raise the minimum wage, which has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for years. “I’m a conservative,” he said, “but they make me sound like a damned liberal the way they act. They spend like fools, they run up the deficits and they refuse to give a raise to the working people who are struggling. How the hell are you supposed to live on $5.15 an hour these days?”
“If it wasn’t for Pelosi,” he said, “I’d just as soon the Democrats take over this fall. Get some checks and balances and teach these guys a lesson.”
In the end, his dislike of the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, and his ingrained disdain for the Democrats may keep my friend voting Republican.
(you can find the complete article on the op/ed page of todays WaPo)
By Mara
July 27, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
(tink, tink, tink) Hello? Yoooooo-hooo, anybody here?
By GOB
July 27, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
Hey Mara…I am here, but trying to finish up my last 2 days of cubicle hell…fun times.
By Brian Curtis
July 27, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
Yes, but no time to post. I’m heading into a meeting.
It’s always depressing to see someone commenting on a one-party state, and then in the same breath embody the reason for such ongoing dominance. Broder’s friend is part of the problem.
By Jack
July 27, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
I sincerely hope that the animal that raped and killed the woman on the silver comet trail dies a slow painful death. Lethal injection is way to good for him. Rrrrrrrrrr!
By Brian Curtis
July 27, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
Yes, but no time to post. I’m heading into a meeting.
It’s always depressing to see someone commenting on a one-party state, and then in the same breath embody the reason for such ongoing dominance. Broder’s friend is part of the problem.
By Mara
July 27, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
Whew! Hey GOB. (Unraptured again I see)
Ah, life in the cube…mmm-hmm, mmm-hmmm. You gonna miss all that claustraphobic fun? Flatulent cube mates and their “private” phone calls…those co-workers who always seem to be a couple bucks short when lunch gets delivered…that one person who refuses to turn the burner off under the empty coffee pot…yeah, now I’m feeling nostalgic
;^P
By Renee
July 27, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
lol Mara, I’m here…just haven’t felt like commenting on this subject anymore….
now onto abortion lol…..
By Jack
July 27, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
It’s always nice when someone heats up fish in the microwave. Or burns the popcorn.
By Neith
July 27, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this
For Jack: Do the Ten Commandments prohibit incest or rape? Answer: No The “ten commandments” do not condemn any sexual acts. The only sexual practice prohibited by the list in Exodus 20 is adultery, which, although a valid marital concern, is a legal act between consenting adults. The violent and degrading crimes of rape and incest surely should have rated a “top ten” list, but they do not appear. Adultery in the Old Testament was considered a crime that could only be committed by a wife. Harper’s Bible Dictionary explains: “The law was probably intended to ensure that any child born to the wife was really the husband’s child, since it was considered crucial for the husband to have offspring, so that the family name could be perpetuated.”
What is the last of the Ten Commandments?
a. Don’t boil a young goat in the milk of its mother. —Believe it or not, this prohibition in Exodus 34:26 is the official tenth commandment, from the only set of stone tablets that were called “the ten commandments.” There were three sets of commandments: 1) The first time Moses came down from Mount Sinai with commandments, he merely recited a list (Exodus 20:2-17), which is the version most churches today erroneously call the “Ten Commandments,” although they were not engraved on stone tablets and not called “the ten commandments.” 2) The first set of stone tablets was given to Moses at a subsequent trip up the mountain (Exodus 31:18). In this farcical story, Moses petulantly destroyed those tablets when he saw the people worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:19). 3) So he went back for a replacement. God told Moses: “Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” (Exodus 34:1) Here is what was on the replacement tablets (from Exodus 34:14-26): 1) Thou shalt worship no other God. 2) Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. 3) The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. 4) Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest. 5) Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks. 6) Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God. 7) Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven. 8) Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning. 9) The first of the first fruits of thy land shalt thou bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. 10) Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk. Keep this in mind next time you are tempted to boil a goat. This list differs, obviously, from the one in Exodus 20 (was God’s memory faulty?), but it is only this list that is called the “Ten Commandments”: “And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.” (Exodus 34:28)
Side by side with some morally defensible admonishments, one finds repeated instructions to hate and to kill. The Mosaic law, that commands the reader to kill the child who curses its father and mother and to stone the woman not a virgin when she marries, was upheld by Jesus, “every jot and tittle.” The “loving” gods of both the Old and New Testaments emerge as mean and vengeful, possessed, as Bertrand Russell said, of “an uneasy vanity.” The apologist for the bible, who insists that it is just an occasional passage that is a problem, overlooks the avalanche of mass murders commanded and perpetrated by the biblical Lord. Live burials, beatings, burnings, cannibalism, buying and selling of human beings, and the chopping off of heads, hands, feet, ears and plucking out of eyes all fill the pages of the “Good Book.” Here is a listing of bible images. When you read it you will know why Thomas Paine called the bible “a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize.” You will know why kind and discerning individuals in our society object to the bible’s use in public ceremonies. You will understand why educational organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation are endeavoring to work for the absolute separation of state and
By Mara
July 27, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
dern lurkers. Never know when someone’s watching anymore…
(groan) Renee, you just had to say it didn’t you?! (sigh) Okay, let’s brace for the invectives and name calling…
Jack - studies are now indicating that lethal injection may not be as “humane” as people once thought. Rumor has it (I haven’t actually read the studies, yet) that it merely paralyzes the person, leaving them unable to indicate that they are actually in excruciating pain.
By Jack
July 27, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
For Neith: That S.O.B. murdering rapist should be boiled in his own urine.
By NetBanker
July 27, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Good Morning! I just got here…work is really getting in the way of blogging and I’m off to a meeting shortly.
GOB…I say give in to your ‘short-timer’s syndrome’! What are they going to do? Fire you?
Ah yes the joys of cubicles. I’ve actually managed to secure an office with a real door and everything, but there’s this big freaking window next to it so people can still tell if I’m in here even with door closed! Boo hoo for me, huh? At least it is better than the blessed cube set up where your back is to the opening and people can sneak up on you.
Renee!!! Put down the can of worms, back away slowly, and no one gets hurts. hehehehe
Kyle…the propensity of these groups to attack in the past is at least decent evidence that these terrorists would have had another attack on us by now if they were able to do so I’m still not sure that I acompletely agree. Look at how patient they were in the planning and execution of 9/11. That plan took several years and hardly anyone knew the entire plan. It’s possible that some of the ‘plots’ we’ve thwarted are only portions of a big plan or they’re red herrings. They want something BIG and spectacular for the next hit. That will take careful planning and time in order to be able to execute the plan without getting caught. They may have a propensity to attack, but the frequency has been against small countries with fewer resources and they’ve all been extremely small attacks in comparison to 9/11. Never underestimate one’s enemy especially when they come from a culture that carries their hatred and their desire for revenge for CENTURIES. Let us not forget they still invoke the images of the Crusades from 800 years ago. 5 years is nothing for them to wait.
By Jack
July 27, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
Still too good for him. He should be beaten to death by her husband. I believe man judges man here on Earth. God takes over when we leave this world. This guy along with many others should be sent to God for Him to judge.
By GOB
July 27, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
Jack - Do you advocate the death penalty for all murderers?
By GOB
July 27, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
Net - I am taking advantage of the short-timer syndrome. I rolled in at about 8:30 this morning, heading out by 4…I have one of those cubes set up so that my back is to the door. I just moved everything around and sit at an angle, so now I can see anyone before they come in.
I am by the breakroom though, so there is no way to avoid the lovely array of smells all day.
By Jack
July 27, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
If they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, yes I do. (and it shouldn’t take years to do it.)
By GOB
July 27, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
If they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, yes I do. (and it shouldn’t take years to do it.)
But isnt every person in prison for murder, by definition, “guilty beyond a resonable doubt?”
By Mara
July 27, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Jack - there’ve been quite a few death-row residents who have recently been cleared of their offeses thanks to DNA evidence. Had the appeals system been quicker the state would have, in effect, murdered innocent men. While the wheels of justice do grind slowly, I contend that it’s better to go slowly and be right than it is to expedite the sentence and be wrong.
and what’s up with this “Neath” poster? Who cares if the Big 10 prohibit rape or incest and what the %$#=@ does it have to do with any of our topics (other than the ubiquitous abortion debate)?
By Jack
July 27, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
A stupid question GOB. I expect better from you. Need better bait than that.
By GOB
July 27, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
Jack - My question just points out how arbitrary “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” can be. Who would be the one making that decision, if not the jury? Would a jury find someone “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” and then some other person or group would have to determine if you were guilty enough beyond a reasonable doubt to be quickly executed?
By Mara
July 27, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
GOB - I thought it was a very good question. It reflects directly onto what Jack means by “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
By The72John
July 27, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
A stupid question GOB. I expect better from you. Need better bait than that.
It’s not a stupid question. The legal standard for murder convictions is, in fact, “Beyond a reasonable doubt”. That’s GOB’s point - by legal definition anyone convicted of murder was convicted by this standard, yet innocent people are still executed.
Just for the record, I’m opposed to the death penalty, period. It’s revenge, not justice.
By Renee
July 27, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
LOL Net!!!
Mara - good point at 10:33. I think that is all too true, unfortunately, and I know a lot of innocent people have died up to this point. Even the people who have gotten out of jail after 25 years, I mean how do they get their life back, the years stolen from them…
By Brian Curtis
July 27, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Even apart from the bias in application and the uncertainty of convictions, AND apart from the “cruel & unusual” aspect of it all… I can’t believe anyone would TRUST our government with the power to kill people.
Seriously, folks; have you seen these dorks in action? Why would anyone—liberal, conservative, or otherwise—be naive enough to think they can be trusted with that kind of power and use it responsibly?
By NetBanker
July 27, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Even the people who have gotten out of jail after 25 years, I mean how do they get their life back, the years stolen from them… They don’t ever get their life back and there is no way to ever repay the years stolen from them or what may have happened to them while in prison.
I’m not sure how I feel about the death penalty. If the standard for a “humane” death is cruel and unusual punishment isn’t keeping someone locked in an 8X10 cell for the remainder of their natural life inhumane too? So obviously being humane isn’t the real consideratin. On one hand keeping someone locked up for all those years is quite the punish whereas death is a kind of freedom from the psychological torture of confinement. On the other why should the tax payers be burdened with the cost of feeding/clothing/etc. for all those years? Maybe we should reconsider the use of island prisons. Give the convicted a survival kit, make sure the island has fresh water, and just drop them off on an unmarked and very remote location. If you can manage to build a boat and cross a couple of hundred miles of ocean still alive then you’ve repaid your debt to society.
By Renee
July 27, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
I totally agree Brian. Personally, I have a lot of mixed feelings when it comes to the death penalty, but you have made quite a valid point, in my opinion. What is amazing is that we have innocent individuals that I am sure have been killed, but we have other crazies that not only have committed their horrific crimes but have proudly owned up to them, that are residing in jail, writing books, and becoming quite the public “icon”.
I can’t imagine that anyone, in the government or otherwise, would want the weight of killing someone on their shoulders. But somehow, when I see these horrible crimes against children etc, I always wonder why these people are still with us, when they obviously hold no use in society…
By The72John
July 27, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
But somehow, when I see these horrible crimes against children etc, I always wonder why these people are still with us, when they obviously hold no use in society…
I understand that, but it’s an emotional response and not a rational one. Sure, we all get angry when we hear about horrific things happening - to children, adults, whatever. But the revenge-response is not the solution, and I just don’t believe that a just society executes others.
That may have something to do with the belief that most people are ultimately redeemable under the right circumstances and given the proper time. I think even the worst criminal deserves the chance to atone in some way for the crimes he has committed. Executing them removes that chance.
For those beyond redemption - the clinically insane criminals like Bundy or Mansen or those others like them, it seems a shame to kill them when they could be studied and profiled over the years. Use them as tools for current and future generations of law enforcement, so that they may be more able to stop future criminals more effectively.
Yes, there’s a cost involved. But sometimes there are things more important than money.
By Archie
July 27, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Just for the record, I’m opposed to the death penalty, period. It’s revenge, not justice.
I am also opposed to the death penalty, because of the bias in the application and the fact that we,the people,convict innocent people all the time. I do have no sympathy for murderers and I will hold any candles for them and I do feel like Jack,that in a perfect world a murderer who also raped his victim needs to get the ultimate penalty and if it’s painful for him/her so what.
I had no sympathy for Tookie Williams or Pee Wee Gaskins because both either committed or caused murder. There is no perfect way to deliver the correct punishment and I definitely don’t want an innocent person harmed so logically I am against the death penalty but emotionally there are some folk that need that cruel and unusual punishment.
By Toad
July 27, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
If killing is wrong, then killing by the state is wrong too.
By Mara
July 27, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
Toad - only some killing is wrong. “Accidental” killing (aka collateral damage) is fine. Killing those you assume are your enemies is fine. Killing by withholding lifesaving medications because they offend your sense of morality is fine. It’s only certain deaths that merit state sanctioned murder.
By Kyle
July 27, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
just thought i’d throw this out their for whatever its worth - studies have shown that the amount of money it costs the government to house and feed a convicted murderer for the rest of his/her life is roughly the same amount that the gov’t spends to go through the entire legal process (original trial and a host of available appeals on all levels) in hopes of enforcing the death penalty - bottom line, the cost to the gov’t is about the same with or without the death penalty.
-true, dna testing has now been able to free people wrongly convicted of murder in the past - but doesn’t the fact that we now have dna testing increase the possibility of correct verdicts in the future? would you guys who now oppose the death penalty support putting the person to death if it was certian that the person commited the crime? how about raising the legal burden of proof for trials in which the death penalty is sought.
“That may have something to do with the belief that most people are ultimately redeemable under the right circumstances and given the proper time. I think even the worst criminal deserves the chance to atone in some way for the crimes he has committed. Executing them removes that chance.”
-John…provided you are certian you have the person who commited the murder (and that’s a big if), what about the person that was killed? the murderer has taken away that person’s life and shattered the remaining lives of the victim’s family and friends. why is the murderer entitled to a chance to atone for his crimes and continue his life when the victim is dead?
-some of the posts on here have made it sound like endless amounts of convicted murderers have later been proved to be innocent and were released. i don’t think this happens nearly as often as some of you guys seem to believe. however, the thought of even one innocent man being put to death is very troublesome to me and that’s my one objection to the death penalty. i have no objection to the gov’t putting to death a person who has taken the life of another - revenge and justice aren’t always mutually exclusive
By GOB
July 27, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
revenge and justice aren’t always mutually exclusive
This may be true, but either way, the government shouldnt be in the revenge business.
The vast majority of those in prison do not have any way of getting someone to even do a DNA test. The orginizations that specialize in working with convicted criminals on their appeals have very small staffs, and therefore can only take on a miniscule percentage of those who may have a legitimate case. The fact that there are any people getting freed because of new technological advances likely means there are a whole lot more that potentially could be wrongfully imprisoned, but will never have the opportunity to prove their innocence.
By The72John
July 27, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
the murderer has taken away that person’s life and shattered the remaining lives of the victim’s family and friends. why is the murderer entitled to a chance to atone for his crimes and continue his life when the victim is dead?
Which part of my response did you not understand? I think I stated rather simply my opinion. Are you having a hard time understanding that I believe that executing for revenge is wrong?
Apparently you haven’t paid attention to the news over the past several years, and seen how the work of ONE dedicated law professor and some student volunteers led to the exoneration of so many death row inmates that a number of states instituted indeffinite moratoriums on the death penalty on their work alone.
By Jack
July 27, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Yeah John. I’m sure you would feel the same way if a member of your family or your s.o. was brutally murdered and the perp’s DNA was all over the scene. Maybe we should just let them go, after all it is revenge locking them up. We wouldn’t want to infringe on their rights now would we?
By GOB
July 27, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Jack - Where has anyone advocated letting them go? This isnt an either/or proposition. There is a middle ground between the death penalty and release.
By Brian Curtis
July 27, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
You’re falling into the either/or thinking trap again, Jack.
By Kyle
July 27, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
“Which part of my response did you not understand? I think I stated rather simply my opinion. Are you having a hard time understanding that I believe that executing for revenge is wrong?”
-John…i guess i should be used to it by now, but it seems as though everytime someone questions your position or disagrees with you in the least - you come back with some smarta$$ comment. i wasn’t being a d-i-c-k to you, why can’t you just respond without always making some attempt to belittle the other person? ok, i understood that you think executing for revenge is wrong, but did you take the time to think about my post? revenge and justice can take the same form in some instances. in these rare cases, the gov’t (the one doing the actual killing) could very well be trying to carry out justice, with no motives for revenge. should the gov’t avoid justice b/c some family members get some sort of a feeling of revenge out of the execution?
“Apparently you haven’t paid attention to the news over the past several years, and seen how the work of ONE dedicated law professor and some student volunteers led to the exoneration of so many death row inmates that a number of states instituted indeffinite moratoriums on the death penalty on their work alone.”
-well, john, enlighten me. point me in the right direction so i can read about it for myself.
By Renee
July 27, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
i don’t think this happens nearly as often as some of you guys seem to believe
I believe it happens too much. Let’s say it happens 20% or even lower to 5% of the time. How can we tell that 5-20% that the justice system is fair etc, when these 5% are in jail for crimes they didn’t commit. Additionally, since DNA is still relatively new, who knows statistically, what the actual numbers were before now (and we are still finding innocent men/women behind bars.). If someone of my family was killed, I’m sure I would feel differently, hence my mixed feelings of the death penalty. Either way, there is no easy answer.
I don’t think anyone says set them free, I actually think analyzing them is a good thing also, to help us in tracking and stopping future psychos.
By The72John
July 27, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Yeah John. I’m sure you would feel the same way if a member of your family or your s.o. was brutally murdered and the perp’s DNA was all over the scene. Maybe we should just let them go, after all it is revenge locking them up. We wouldn’t want to infringe on their rights now would we?
I’m sure that I would be angry and furious, Jack. No one says that people can’t be outraged or angry or bloodthirsty. We’re human, of course we’re going to feel. However, that doesn’t mean that we should act on those feelings. And it certainly doesn’t mean that the state should facilitate our acting on those feelings.
Maybe we should just let them go, after all it is revenge locking them up. We wouldn’t want to infringe on their rights now would we?
Now you’re just being silly. We lock criminals up because they have proven that they are unable to function by societies rules and are a danger to others. This argument is about as logical as the anti-gay marriage types who suggest that allowing same-sex marriages will lead to people marrying their horses.
By Mara
July 27, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
Jack - …it is revenge locking them up.
Nope. The reason we incarcerate people, theoretically, is to protect society from their depradations, penalize them for their transgression, and give them an opportunity to rehabilitate their lives. Revenge should have nothing to do with it.
Kyle - i don’t think this happens nearly as often as some of you guys seem to believe
in the 14 years the Innocence Project has been working they’ve helped exonerate at least 110 wrongly convicted people. That works out to about 8 per year. While it isn’t an overwhelming percentage of the prison population, it isn’t insignificant. I didn’t see the stats on how many had applied to the project for help, but given their limited resources I doubt they were able to help every one.
By GOB
July 27, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
I believe it happens too much. Let’s say it happens 20% or even lower to 5% of the time. How can we tell that 5-20% that the justice system is fair etc, when these 5% are in jail for crimes they didn’t commit.
Renee - Even if you drop it to 1%, we are still talking about over 20,000 people in prison unjustly. And all of those people have families that are affected. Also, that means that there are over 20,000 criminals still at large, with no one looking for them.
By The72John
July 27, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
http://www.truthinjustice.org/dphistory-IL.htm
-John…i guess i should be used to it by now, but it seems as though everytime someone questions your position or disagrees with you in the least - you come back with some smarta$$ comment. i wasn’t being a d-i-c-k to you, why can’t you just respond without always making some attempt to belittle the other person?
I laid out my position quite clearly. Your question was an attempt to attack what is a moral belief. I don’t have to justify why I feel the way I do. It’s enough for me to say I feel that way.
http://www.truthinjustice.org/dphistory-IL.htm
By GOB
July 27, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
I didn’t see the stats on how many had applied to the project for help, but given their limited resources I doubt they were able to help every one.
Mara - I read somewhere that they are only able to work with about 5% of the people that contact them. Imagine how many people are wrongly imprisoned that will never even have a chance to prove it.
By Mara
July 27, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
Renee - Additionally, since DNA is still relatively new, who knows statistically, what the actual numbers were before now (and we are still finding innocent men/women behind bars.).
True. Another point is that in many cases, DNA evidence is either not available or has been compromised in some way. It’d be nice if all cases were provable by unimpeachable evidence. Unfortunately we often see flawed eyewitness testimony, confession under duress, and plain legal incompetence on the part of court-appointed defense attorneys. If you’re innocent but your lawyer sucks and you have no resources, you’re pretty much SOL.
By Jack
July 27, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
“You’re falling into the either/or thinking trap again, Jack.”
No. Just being a smarta$$. John doesn’t hold the patent on that.
By Billy
July 27, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
If one innocent life is spared at the cost of housing one thousand murderers for life, then I say it’s worth the price.
By Jack
July 27, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
” laid out my position quite clearly. I don’t have to justify why I feel the way I do. It’s enough for me to say I feel that way.”
Ditto.
By Renee
July 27, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
GOB - I agree totally 2:03 and 2:14. I don’t think we really want to know how much our justice system has gotten it wrong. I think it is very important to point out for every person that is in jail for a heinous crime (or otherwise) that is innocent, the real perpetrators are still out there, most likely still committing crimes, making more victims even still.
The death penalty is a tricky situation. I was watching a PBS special on the nurse from Jackson, GA no less, (I can’t remember her name at the moment) and the problems the AMA is having with doctors being a part of the whole execution process. I don’t know how she or anyone else could do the job they do…It takes a special mindset to say the least.
By Mara
July 27, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
relevant info in this article but waaaay too many numbers to cut-n-paste (since I’m not chuck, and I prefer not to annoy my blog-buddies…)
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/07/16/innocencebythe_numbers/
By GOB
July 27, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Jack - Your position wasnt laid out clearly though. Your position would have had innocent men put to death. Well, maybe it was clear, but not well thought out…
By The72John
July 27, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
No. Just being a smarta$$. John doesn’t hold the patent on that.
That’s what you think - I filed the paperwork last week.
By Jack
July 27, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
“I think it is very important to point out for every person that is in jail for a heinous crime (or otherwise) that is innocent, the real perpetrators are still out there, most likely still committing crimes, making more victims even still.”
This makes sense only if the real perp stops committing the crimes. If they keep doing it, they will get caught and the innocent will be let go when the link is established.
By Kyle
July 27, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
“in the 14 years the Innocence Project has been working they’ve helped exonerate at least 110 wrongly convicted people. That works out to about 8 per year. While it isn’t an overwhelming percentage of the prison population, it isn’t insignificant.”
-Mara…i never said the number was insignificant. in fact, i said that even one innocent person being executed was very troblesome for me. but since we were talking about the death penalty, and not simply people convicted of a crime in general, do you know how many of those 110 people exonerated were on death row? i think this would be relevant b/c the burden of proof for other crimes is much lower and thus there is more of a chance for a wrongful conviction.
-john….thanks for the cite. that wasn’t so hard was it?
By GOB
July 27, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
This makes sense only if the real perp stops committing the crimes. If they keep doing it, they will get caught and the innocent will be let go when the link is established.
Jack - Have you seen CNN.com lately? There are two seperate stories about serial killers that were just caught, but have killing people since the 1970s. Murder has the highest solve rate of any crime, and it is only at 64% (FBI 2003). Because so many crimes are not solved at all, the real criminals will likely be able to continue unabated. 36% of all murderers arent even caught.
By Mara
July 27, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
John - LOL at the “patent pending” Let us know when to add the TM after your blog posts :^)
Jack - I still luv ya even when our opinions differ
By Renee
July 27, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
What makes you think they would get caught, Jack? They were doing it before the “innocent” person got caught and they didn’t get caught. Generally speaking, a person goes a long time committing crimes before they are actually caught. So a first “caught” shoplifter is much different from a first “time” shoplifter. Same for a child molester, rapist, etc…and their crimes usually intensify and become more heinous as time goes on.
I still don’t understand why you say comment only makes sense if the real perp stops committing the crime, but I am having a lot of brain farts today, and I will stick with I don’t agree with that.
By Billy
July 27, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
If the real perps stop committing the murders, then I say there’s no reason to execute them. At that point it’s revenge since they no longer pose a threat to society.
By Jack
July 27, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Luv you too Mara.
GOB. And when they’re caught they should meet their maker ASAP. If the innocent is wrongfully put to death, God will take care of them.
By NetBanker
July 27, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
OIY…some folks are gettin’ a lil testy! How about a change of focus for a second? to my great dismay I just found out that July is National Ice Cream Month. I’ve only got 4 days left to celebrate my personal addiction. I can’t believe that I’ve missed 26 days to celebrate the best food invented since sliced bread. OK…now that we’ve all paused for just a second to think about sweet, smooth, creamy, delicious ice cream all y’all are free to return to your regularly scheduled blog
By Billy
July 27, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
If the innocent is wrongfully put to death, God will take care of them.
Well, we should just incinerate the Earth as soon as possible, since “God” will take care of the righteous…
By The72John
July 27, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Net, have you been taking the loopy pills again? More ramblings, hmm…
Jack knows I like him, even when I don’t agree with him.
By lozen
July 27, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
Ahhhhhhh, ice cream! You scream, I scream……. Haven’t had any in quite a while but held a pint of chocolate chocolate chip last night! 300 calories for half a cup - geez, it went back into the case. Why oh why does everything I like have to be fattening, immoral or illegal?
By Kyle
July 27, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
“If the real perps stop committing the murders, then I say there’s no reason to execute them. At that point it’s revenge since they no longer pose a threat to society.”
…or, provided that its the real murderer, its justice (eye for an eye). if someone stole money from you but promised not to steal anymore, would you say its only revenge to make them pay it back?
By Renee
July 27, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
GOB. And when they’re caught they should meet their maker ASAP. If the innocent is wrongfully put to death, God will take care of them.
That’s under the assumption that 1. There actually is a God 2. That God does actually issue punishments 3. That God issues fair punishments
By The72John
July 27, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
…or, provided that its the real murderer, its justice (eye for an eye). if someone stole money from you but promised not to steal anymore, would you say its only revenge to make them pay it back?
Execution is not restitution.
By Jack
July 27, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
You know the rhythm is right. Gonna rock all night. Yeah.
By Jack
July 27, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
You’re ok with me John. Net has loopy pills? Say it isn’t so. I thought only us loons were allowed to take them. LOL
By Kyle
July 27, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
“Execution is not restitution.”
-John…fair point. nothing will make that family whole again - including the execution of the perp. but there does seem to be a sense of fairness/justice in the notion that if you take someones life you forfeit your own.
-btw, i’m actually against the death penalty as it now stands. not because i don’t think the gov’t should kill people, but becasue i don’t think the gov’t should kill innocent people. until the gov’t heightens the standard for a death penalty conviction to the point where absolute certianty is required (i.e. several eyewitnesses required, indisputable dna evidence required, etc..), i don’t support it.
By Renee
July 27, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
Net, I forgot to comment about the ice cream. If I was in Atlanta, “Ice Cream Month” would have passed me by, but here in Vermont, Ben & Jerry are like mini Gods lol. I love ice cream, not a huge Ben & Jerry’s fan but they just came out with a new flavor, American Pie, which has chunks of Apple Pie in it, delicious!! My daughter on the other hand absolutely loves all Ben & Jerry’s!!
By Billy
July 27, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
…or, provided that its the real murderer, its justice (eye for an eye). if someone stole money from you but promised not to steal anymore, would you say its only revenge to make them pay it back?
Execution is not restitution.
Exactly. Kyle, if executing the murderer would bring back the victim, then I’d be for it. That’s not how it works. It’s vengeance, not justice. With murder and rape, there is no justice. There’s vengeance, and there’s putting the person away where they cannot commit those crimes again.
By TramadoL87347
July 27, 2006 10:41 PM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to anything recently, but so it goes. Such is life. What can I say? Pretty much not much exciting going on to speak of. I haven’t gotten much done lately, but I don’t care.
By TramadoL18520
July 28, 2006 12:13 AM | Link to this
I just don’t have anything to say. Not that it matters. Eh. I’ve just been staying at home doing nothing, but I don’t care. That’s how it is.
By TramadoL84019
July 28, 2006 03:02 AM | Link to this
I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning. My life’s been pretty unremarkable these days. Eh.
By creampie
July 28, 2006 08:06 AM | Link to this
http://creampienew.com/ Creampie
http://creampienew.com/creampie-a*s.htm Creampie a*s
http://creampienew.com/creampie-c*m.htm Creampie c*m
http://creampienew.com/creampie-movies.htm Creampie movies
http://creampienew.com/creampie-stories.htm Creampie stories
http://creampienew.com/creampie-video.htm Creampie video
http://creampienew.com/mature-creampie.htm Mature creampie
http://creampienew.com/oral-creampie.htm /Oral creampie
http://creampienew.com/teen-anal-creampies.htm Teen creampies
By Jack
July 28, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
See no evil, hear no evil, have no fun.
By Kyle
July 28, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
“With murder and rape, there is no justice.”
-Billy….i guess we’re just gonna gave to disagree on this one. if a person kills someone, and you know for a fact that you have the right perp, i see it as justice to put that person to death. yeah, the family and friends of the victim will more than likely have some feelings of revenge or vengence - but the party actually performing the execution, the state, will have no such feelings and will simply be enforcing justice, at least in my opinion.
-on a different note, since its friday, i don’t have a joke but i do have an interesting bit of info - i heard on the radio this morning that one of mike vick friends put of a picture of herself and vick in the back of a limo up on her myspace page. the interesting part is that vick’s eyes were barely open and he’s holding a blunt. looks like ron mexico is trying to start preseason of on the right foot.
By lozen
July 28, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
Here are 16 actual error messages seen on the computer screens in Japan where they are written in Haiku. Aren’t these better than “your computer has performed an illegal operation”?
The Web site you seek cannot be located, but countless more exist. Chaos reigns within. Reflect, repent, and reboot. Order shall return.Program aborting: Close all that you have worked on. You ask far too much.
Windows NT crashed. I am the Blue Screen of Death. No one hears your screams.
Yesterday it worked. Today it is not working. Windows is like that.
Your file was so big. It might be very useful. But now it is gone.
Stay the patient course. Of little worth is your ire. The network is down.
A crash reduces your expensive computer to a simple stone.
Three things are certain: Death, taxes and lost data. Guess which has occurred.
You step in the stream, but the water has moved on. This page is not here.
Out of memory. We wish to hold the whole sky, but we never will.
Having been erased, The document you’re seeking must now be retyped.
Serious error. All shortcuts have disappeared. Screen. Mind. Both are blank.
By Bruce
July 28, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
The Pope took a couple of days off to visit the mountains of Alaska for some sight-seeing. He was cruising along the campground in the Pope mobile when there was a frantic commotion just at the edge of the woods. A helpless Democrat, wearing sandals, shorts, a “Save the Whales” hat, and a “To Hell with Bush” T-shirt, was screaming while struggling frantically, thrashing around trying to free himself from the grasp of a 10 foot grizzly.
As the Pope watched horrified, a group of Republican loggers came racing up. One quickly fired a .44 magnum into the bear’s chest… The other two reached up and pulled the bleeding, semiconscious Democrat from the bear’s grasp. Then using long clubs, the three loggers finished off the bear and two of them threw it onto the bed of their truck while the other tenderly placed the injured Democrat in the back seat.
As they prepared to leave, the Pope summoned them to come over. “I give you my blessing for your brave actions!” he told them. “I heard there was a bitter hatred between Republican loggers and Democratic Environmental activists but now I’ve seen with my own eyes that this is not true.”
As the Pope drove off, one of the loggers asked his buddies “Who was that guy?” “It was the Pope,” another replied. “He’s in direct contact with heaven and has access to all wisdom.” “Well,” the logger said, “he may have access to all wisdom but he sure doesn’t know anything about bear hunting! By the way, is the bait holding up, or do we need to go back to Massachusetts and snatch another one?”
By Jack
July 28, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
Billy Bob and Luther were talking one afternoon when Billy Bob tells Luther, “Ya know, I reckon I’m ‘bout ready for a vacation. Only this year I’m gonna do it a little different.
The last few years, I took your advice about where to go. Three years ago you said to go to Hawaii. I went to Hawaii and Earlene got pregnant.
Then two years ago, you told me to go to the Bahamas,and Earlene got pregnant again.
Last year you suggested Tahiti and darned if Earlene didn’t get pregnant again.”
Luther asks Billy Bob, “So, what you gonna do this year that’s different? “
Billy Bob says, “This year I’m taking Earlene with me.”
By Bruce
July 28, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
The Pope took a couple of days off to visit the mountains of Alaska for some sight-seeing. He was cruising along the campground in the Pope mobile when there was a frantic commotion just at the edge of the woods. A helpless Democrat, wearing sandals, shorts, a “Save the Whales” hat, and a “To Hell with Bush” T-shirt, was screaming while struggling frantically, thrashing around trying to free himself from the grasp of a 10 foot grizzly.
As the Pope watched horrified, a group of Republican loggers came racing up. One quickly fired a .44 magnum into the bear’s chest… The other two reached up and pulled the bleeding, semiconscious Democrat from the bear’s grasp. Then using long clubs, the three loggers finished off the bear and two of them threw it onto the bed of their truck while the other tenderly placed the injured Democrat in the back seat.
As they prepared to leave, the Pope summoned them to come over. “I give you my blessing for your brave actions!” he told them. “I heard there was a bitter hatred between Republican loggers and Democratic Environmental activists but now I’ve seen with my own eyes that this is not true.”
As the Pope drove off, one of the loggers asked his buddies “Who was that guy?” “It was the Pope,” another replied. “He’s in direct contact with heaven and has access to all wisdom.” “Well,” the logger said, “he may have access to all wisdom but he sure doesn’t know anything about bear hunting! By the way, is the bait holding up, or do we need to go back to Massachusetts and snatch another one?”
By Stephan Colbert
July 28, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Bruce - That is not funny. Bears are godless killing machines!
By Billy
July 28, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
Kyle — If justice is restitution —you paying me back the money you stole from me — then there is no justice with murder or rape, because nothing can bring back what was taken. If executing the guilty brought back the innocent, than I’d be for it. But it doesn’t. So the only other reason people give in favor of the death penaly is that it saves money. Well, like BC said, it’s a little scary to give the state the authority to kill its citizens. It’s especially unnerving to let them do that because it saves a buck.
By lozen
July 28, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
2 The Ten Commandments of GritsBy lozen
July 28, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Striking up a conversation with the attractive woman seated beside him on a coast-to-coast flight, a would be Romeo, asked, “What type of man attracts you?” “I’ve always been drawn to Native American men,” she replied. “They’re so in tune with nature.”
“I see,” the man said, nodding.
“But then, I really go for Jewish men who put women on a pedestal and I can hardly resist the way Southern men treat their ladies with such respect.”
“Please, forgive me for not introducing myself properly,” said the man. “My name is Running Bear Goldstein, but all my friends call me Bubba.”
By Jack
July 28, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
So you think Brian Nicoles should be allowed to live Billy? In jail he can eat, drink and have orgasms. The four people he killed in cold blood can do that no more. I really don’t want my tax money spent to support him for the next 40 years.
By lozen
July 28, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
A couple of hunters are out in the woods in the deep south when one of them falls to the ground. He doesn’t seem to be breathing, and his eyes are rolled back in his head. The other guy whips out his cell phone and calls 911. He gasps to the operator, “My friend is dead! What can I do?”
The operator, in a calm and soothing voice, says, “Alright, take it easy. I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.”
There is silence, and then a gun shot is heard.
The hunter comes back on the line. “OK. Now what??”
By lozen
July 28, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
Investments
STOCK: A magical piece of paper that is worth $33.75 until the moment you buy it. It will then be worth $8.50. BOND: What you had with your spouse until you pawned his/her golf clubs to invest in Amazon.com.
BROKER: The person you trust to help you make major financial decisions. Please note the first five letters of this word spell Broke.
BEAR: What your trade account and wallet will be when you take a flyer on that hot stock tip your secretary gave you.
BULL: What your broker uses to explain why your mutual funds tanked during the last quarter.
MARGIN: Where you scribble the latest quotes when you’re supposed to be listening to your manager’s presentation.
SHORT POSITION: A type of trade where, in theory, a person sells stocks he doesn’t actually own. Since this also only ever works in theory, a short position is what a person usually ends up being in (i.e. “The rent, sir? Hahaha, well, I’m a little short this month.”).
COMMISSION: The only reliable way to make money on the stock market, which is why your broker charges you one.
YAK: What you do into a pail when you discover your stocks have plunged and your broker is making a margin call.
By Renee
July 28, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
BLONDE COWBOY
The Sheriff in a small town walks out in the street and sees a blond cowboy coming down the walk with nothing on but his cowboy hat, gun, and his boots, so he arrests him for indecent exposure. As he is locking him up, he asks “Why in the world are you dressed like his? The Cowboy says, “Well it’s like this Sheriff … I was in the bar down the road and this pretty little red head asks me to go out to her motor home with her. So I did. We go inside and she pulls off her top and asks me to pull off my shirt .. so I did. Then she pulls off her skirt and asks me to pull off my pants … so I did. Then she pulls off her panties and asks me to pull off my shorts so I did. Then she gets on the bed and looks at me kind of sexy and says, “Now go to town cowboy… “. And here I am Son of a Gun, Blond Men do exist
By Bruce
July 28, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
There are only eleven times in history where the “F” word has been considered acceptable for use.
They are as follows:
“What the @#$% do you mean, we are sinking?” — Capt. E.J. Smith of RMS Titanic, 1912
“What the @#$% was that?” — Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945
“Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?” — Custer, 1877
“Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that.” — Einstein, 1938
“It does so @#$%ing look like her!” — Picasso, 1924
“How the @#$% did you work that out?” — Pythagoras, 126 BC
“You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling?” — Michelangelo, 1566
“Where the @#$% are we?” — Amelia Earhart, 1937
“Scattered @#$%ing showers, my a*s!” — Noah, 4314 BC
“Aw c’mon. Who the @#$% is going to find out?” — Bill Clinton, 1998
and a drum roll please…………!
By lozen
July 28, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
For many years, a young stock broker at Big Street Investments would plan a yearly weekend getaway at a mountain Inn. He would rendez-vous with the innkeeper’s daughter while he was there. Looking forward to this years trip he departed with his suitcases in hand. When he arrived at the Inn he made his way up the stairs to his usual meeting room. The door was open and he walked in glancing at the Innkeeper daughter sitting on the bed. There she sat with an infant on her lap! “Who is that he asked.” “It’s your son” she answred. “Why didn’t you write when you learned you were pregnant?” he cried. “I would have rushed up here, we could have gotten married, and the child would have my name!”
“Well,” she said, “when my folks found out about my condition, we sat up all night talkin’ and talkin’ and we finally decided it would be better to have a bastard in the family than a stock broker.
By Kyle
July 28, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
“Kyle — If justice is restitution —you paying me back the money you stole from me — then there is no justice with murder or rape, because nothing can bring back what was taken. If executing the guilty brought back the innocent, than I’d be for it. But it doesn’t. So the only other reason people give in favor of the death penaly is that it saves money. Well, like BC said, it’s a little scary to give the state the authority to kill its citizens. It’s especially unnerving to let them do that because it saves a buck.”
Billy…justice is restitution, but it isn’t limited to restitution. in keeping with my stealing $$ analogy, if a person steals he is not simply let of the hook when he is caught and the $$ is given back to the original owner - he is punished. there is such a thing in our justice system as punitive damages which go beyond making the victim whole again. it serves as a deterent for would be criminals and punishes those who have commited the crime. i see punishment as a part of justice. without this element its a no lose situation for the person considering a crime. if he commits the crime and gets away with it, he pays nothing and has gained something he wanted. but if he commits the crime and gets caught, all he has to do is pay it back and he is right back where he started. also, the argument in favor of the death penalty that is saves money is bogus. on average the legal expenses incurred through the trial and all possible appeals in order to actually put someone to death is roughly equal to the cost to house and feed a convict for the rest of their life.
By lozen
July 28, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
A girl from the South and a girl from the North were seated side by side on a plane. The girl from the South, being friendly and all, said, “So, where ya’ll from?” The Northern girl said, “From a place where they know better than to use a preposition at the end of a sentence.” The girl from the South sat quietly for a few moments and then replied, “So, where ya’ll from, b***h?”
By Bruce
July 28, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
Two guys go hunting. Jerry has never gone hunting, while Joe has hunted all his life. When they get to the northern Wisconsin woods, Joe tells Jerry to sit by a tree and not make a sound while Joe checks out a deer stand. When he gets about a quarter of a mile away, Joe hears a blood-curdling scream. He rushes back to Jerry and yells, “I thought I told you to be quiet!” Jerry says, “Hey, I tried. I really tried!! When those snakes crawled over me, I didn’t make a sound. When that bear was breathing down my neck, I didn’t make a peep. But when those two chipmunks crawled up my pants leg and said - ‘Should we take them with us or eat them here?’, I couldn’t keep quiet any more!”
By lozen
July 28, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
Allen took his blind date to the carnival. “What would you like to do first, Sandra?” asked Allen. “I want to get weighed,” said Sandra. They ambled over to the weight guesser. He guessed 120 pounds. She got on the scale; it read 117 and she won a prize. Next, the couple went on the ferris wheel. When the ride was over, Allen again asked Sandra what she would like to do. “I want to get weighed,” she said. Back to the weight guesser they went. Since they had been there before, he guessed her correct weight, and Allen lost his dollar. The couple walked around the carnival and again he asked where to next. “I want to get weighed,” she responded. By this time, Allen figured she was really weird and took her home early, dropping her off with a handshake. Her roommate, Laura, asked her about the blind date, “How did it go?” Sandra responded, “Oh, Waura, it was wousy.”
By Billy
July 28, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Jack, your tax money is going to support him for the next 10, 15, or 20 years anyway. Plus you’re going to have to pay for his indigent defense — if he chooses to exhaust the appeals process. The difference in cost between life in prison and many years in prison followed by an execution is not as great as people think it is.
I think Nichols’ case merits study. He just snapped. Then a woman did some meth with him and he gave up. I think he’s the perfect example of studying criminals to learn about them. As for the punishment? I like the one Bradley Whiford’s character laid out for terrorists in an episode of “The West Wing” — put them in a tiny cell and make them watch home videos of the people they killed. Put a TV behind bullet-proof glass and have it run 24/7.
By lozen
July 28, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
Hello, is this the FBI?” “Yes. What do you want?” “I’m calling to report about my neighbor Billy Bob Smith! He is hiding marijuana inside his firewood.” “Thank you very much for the call, sir.” The next day, the FBI agents descend on Billy Bob’s house. They search the shed where the firewood is kept. Using axes, they bust open every piece of wood, but find no marijuana. They swore at Billy Bob and left.
The phone rings at Billy Bob’s house. “Hey, Billy Bob! Did the FBI come?” “Yeah!” “Did they chop your firewood?” “Yep.” “Happy Birthday, Buddy”
By Billy
July 28, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
Kyle — I know that punushment is a facet of sentencing every bit as much as restitution is. But punishment need not be Draconian. Life in prison is punitive. And you never run the risk of executing an innocent man.
By Jack
July 28, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
Sounds like a good punishment Billy.
By NetBanker
July 28, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
Lozen..you’re on a roll today, girl! I’ve needed the laughs!
Net has loopy pills? Say it isn’t so. I thought only us loons were allowed to take them. LOL Loons take anti-loopy pill. It’s been a tough week between work and this damn heat rash that I have from sweating my buns off while working in the yard and detailing my car last weekend. As a result I’ve been a bit on the slap happy side…it’s either that or go completely insane with the incessant itching that I can’t scratch.
By Renee
July 28, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Lozen, all of your have been hilarious!!! I’ve needed those today!!!
By Jack
July 28, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Speaking of loopy pills, who on this blog besides Lozen & Chilao knows of the elusive Rorer 714?
By Jack
July 28, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Come on. Am I that old?
By Jack
July 28, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Yada, yada, yada…..
By lozen
July 28, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Rorer 714? ‘splain, Jack.
By NetBanker
July 28, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Yes, Jack…you’re apparently that old. I had to Google Rorer 714 to figure out you were talking about Vitamin Q.
By Jack
July 28, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
By lozen
July 28, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
Yeyah, everybody have a wonderful weekend.