"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[Eric P]

i live in nyc so...yeah

[benjipwns]

[Phoenix Dark]

Obama Plays Hardball and Egypt’s Morsi Folds
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/obama-plays-hardball-and-egypts-morsi-folds.html

too long to post snippets, but I'd love to get our foreign policy extraordinaire The Business' thoughts

[benjipwns]

For what it's worth I was reading a few conservative things earlier and they had more or less the same general take, but obviously more negative towards Obama on "what it means."

Since somebody was asking earlier maybe seriously. It seems like the Republican criticism* is coming mostly from how Obama/Hillary worded things earlier. To use Taranto who I like despite often disagreements:

Wait a minute, "anti-American domestic opinion"? We thought they just didn't like the movie. The riots are in Egypt, but Jay Carney seems to be in denial.

Reuters reports that Morsi's account of the conversation with Obama is quite different from the White House's, as reported by the Times: "On Thursday, [Morsi] said he asked U.S. President Barack Obama to act against those seeking to harm relations. His cabinet said Washington was not to blame for the film but urged the United States to take legal action against those insulting religion."

Egypt is demanding that Obama violate the American Constitution by prosecuting speech that is protected under the First Amendment. That fact is left out of the Times puff piece, which mentions only that Morsi "brought up" the film and Obama "said he understood the ire felt by Muslims." If Obama had said "no" to Morsi's outrageous demand, surely that would have made it into a Times account designed to convey his firm leadership.

"Scholars say the furor [in Cairo] reflects different traditions when it comes to religious rights and freedoms," the Times piece asserts. "Where Americans prize individual choice, Egyptians put a greater emphasis on the rights of communities, families and religious groups."

That's a laughably anodyne way of describing the distinction between freedom and Islamic supremacism, but one begins to suspect that the administration shares the Times's mindset: We have our values, they have theirs, and surely everyone can find common ground in deploring this awful video.

But even accepting that formulation, Americans are entitled to ask why our government has failed to take a clear stand on behalf of our values and our basic law. Perhaps the thinking is that a meliorative tone will have a meliorative effect. That certainly seems to have been the impulse behind the U.S. Embassy's initial statement, now down the memory hole but quoted here Wednesday, sympathizing with the mob that later stormed the grounds. Although the administration has disavowed that particular statement, every public pronouncement from the White House and State Department, including Carney's today, has been in the same spirit.

To our ear, it sounds pusillanimous rather than prudent. The "Arab street" seems to be hearing it the same way. Reuters reports that in Cairo, "hundreds of protesters gathered in streets near the mission, pelting police with stones and petrol bombs as they were pushed back from the embassy perimeter. . . . Thousands of people joined peaceful protests after Friday prayers in Tahrir and outside mosques in Cairo and other cities, responding to a call by the Muslim Brotherhood, the group that propelled President Mohamed Mursi [same guy, different transliteration] to power." That was the day after Obama supposedly dressed Morsi down.

The Times website reports that "the violently anti-American rallies"--no, no, no, no, no, they're only about the movie!--"expanded on Friday to more than a dozen countries, with demonstrators storming the American Embassy in Tunisia in a deadly clash and protesters in Sudan's capital broadening the targets to include Germany and Britain." In Yemen, they broke into the U.S. Embassy yesterday; in Lebanon they torched a KFC. Apparently there are no Chick-fil-As in that part of the world.

...

Our colleague Anne Jolis phoned Anjem Choudary, who organized the London protest, and he makes quite clear that Carney has it wrong: "In Islam, you could ban it," he tells her, referring to the film. "How come Americans can't? They still proclaim 'freedom of expression'--but if Americans can believe in freedom of expression, which involves harming other people, insulting their prophets, then what's wrong with Muslims having freedom of action, doing what they did in Libya and Egypt?"

The Obama administration's response to the crisis has been not only fatuous but confused. The other day, as ABC News reports, a Telemundo reporter asked the president if he considers Egypt an ally. His reply: "You know, I don't think that we would consider them an ally but we don't consider them an enemy." In fact, since 1989 Egypt (along with Australia, Israel, Japan and South Korea, and later other countries) has been formally classified as a "major non-NATO ally."

The Times describes this as the president's having "signaled his displeasure" with the Egyptian government's lack of support. It sounds to us more like the careless musing of someone who is not a seasoned foreign-policy hand.

Remember these are the people who despise Ron Paul (even if they claim to agree on everything else) because he "blamed America for 9/11" when he said "you fuck with people, they might fuck with you back."

*I admit, I'm only reading the ones who meet certain standards, but I did a casual glance at RedState, etc. and there's a lot of the "OBAMA DIDN'T DEFEND FIRST AMENDMENT!" stuff.

[benjipwns]

Actually, I wanted to ask you guys a honest question about your Stalinist Year Zero views.

What kind of columnists/people/blogs/etc. do you go to?

I know all the Ezra Klein, Yglasias, Krugman, disingenuous types.

I'm talking about someone like Glenn Greenwald who despite the sockpuppets actually believes in something other than forever supporting The Party.

I honestly don't know any good "left" writers who aren't just Democratic Party mouthpieces anymore. Was hoping you guys knew some.

EDIT: As an example, I loved reading Hitchens, even though I rarely agreed with him. Especially in his late days when he loved Bush and wanted war, his prose was gosh.

[Mandark]

Krugman, disingenuous types

 

In all seriousness, though, the long answer is this...

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[benjipwns]

Did you forget I'm a libertarian?

Plus I hate how his wife writes.

But really I was trying to cast off those kind of popular newspaper columnists.

[Mandark]

Well you could be more clear on what you're looking for.

Good prose?  Outsider posturing to give the feel of authenticity?  Someone with unexpected takes on the issues rather than the same folks making obvious points?  A "liberal" who will make libertarian critiques from a nominally different perspective to make you feel less intellectually cloistered (like why I've bookmarked Daniel Larison)?  Someone who stays consistent and honest (like, y'know, KRUGMAN)?  Just someone who you probably haven't read before?

[benjipwns]

Let me first point out just because I have to that I don't consider Krugman to be either consistent or honest anymore.

But I mentioned Greenwald who I think is basically honest.

I certainly don't need any kind of intellectual protection, but I was wondering if there was something better, more honest, something that existed outside of lockstep marching with the team than an Ezra Klein. I figured you guys were smart progressives and could point me to something like this. Especially if it did challenge.

I like Mickey Kaus, NOT when he agrees with the Republicans (say immigration, where he's close to a bigot) but when he challenges his own party to make the welfare state work better. I love that. He wants Medicare for all because it's what he thinks works best.

Good prose is always a positive.

If you're reading Klein and Yglesias and Krugman's Democratic drivel, I don't give a shit, but if you've got something good, I'd love to read it.

[Mandark]

Well, sounds like you're using "honesty" to mean "strongly worded criticism of their party," so... maybe Zell Miller's got a twitter account?

Someone asking for good stuff like Mickey Kaus is like someone wanting you to recommend them rockin' music like Bon Jovi.  It takes all kinds, but I'm not sure I can get in the mindset to make accurate recommendations, and even if I could I might not want to.

[benjipwns]

I really don't get why you're getting so defensive over this. All I asked for was some "left" writers who would properly represent the position of my favorite posters here on The Bore.

I mentioned that I liked Greenwald and Kaus who are not afraid to criticize their party in pursuit of ideological goals AS AN EXAMPLE of people who do such.

I also was honest about how I don't consider Klein or Yglasias to be honest and how I certainly don't think Krugman in his current role bothers to be (and suggested I think his wife "helps" him on his columns which was a massive tunnel you could have drove a tank through but didn't) while I said nothing about his academic work which IS solid and yet has nothing to do with the drivel (AS AN ADMITTED LIBERTARIAN) he puts out constantly.

I read people like Taranto (quoted above) who I DO NOT agree with but enjoy their writing or logical offerings or what have you.

All I wanted was the "left" version of this. I qualified the writers I already know I mostly dismissed because I have read them for years.

I like Kaus writing, I disagree with 75% of what he writes. But I like how goes about. Find me a socialist scumbag like him is all I'm asking.

[benjipwns]

Actually, let me put it this way Mandark, I don't trust what Klein, Yglasias and Krugman write in their official positions because of their past. I'd be glad to trust them again. But if there are better "left" (or whatever) sources I'd easily believe them over people I know have lied and who I expect to lie.

[Mandark]

I also was honest

This is one of those improper adjectives, isn't it?  "I was honest.  You were defensive.  He was insulting."

Just read what I posted again, only this time do me a personal favor and act like I mean it (Zell Miller line notwithstanding).  I've read too much of both Greenwald and Kaus to take anything on their word (outside of Greenwald's bailiwick of US torture/detention policy).  So when someone rates them highly my recommendation algorithms just can't get a handle on it.

[benjipwns]

Look, I offered up that I don't consider the Klein/Klugman types to be what I'm looking for. And yes, I don't believe them to be honest, etc. That should be expected.

If someone wants to offer them in their list of good reads, I won't mind.

All I was looking for here is that we have some good progressives, they should know good sites to read, I tried to help by filtering out the "types" I don't care for, if they don't agree, I can't help that.

I don't care about Zell Miller who had nothing to lose. Mickey Kaus and Glenn Greenwald have been holding their ideological positions for a while. I used them as an example of people who will stick to principles and not just roll over if a Democrat exists. You can find endless Republicans, hell, people think I am one.

All I wanted to know was who is The Bore reading on the "left" or really just whatever. I specified that I preferred people who held to principles or such rather than just saying VOTE DEM 24/7 because those are rational people, but if those people can't be found, no skin off my back.

I like reading shit like Kaus and Greenwald because they do challenge me.

[benjipwns]

I apologize if I have come off too aggressive in this.

[Mandark]

No worries.  Figured I was answering the question in the tone it was asked.

Greenwald's not honest, at least not exceptionally.  When he talks about something outside of his area of expertise he basically picks a position which gels his intuitions, acts really sure of himself, and on the times where he gets called out for overreaching or getting something wrong, writes half a dozen boldface updates rather than admit fallibility or just shut up and retcon the whole incident.  He's got a large, vocally supportive following and a paid gig from doing this.  I think the tribal-social aspect of trying to fit in and reinforce the group identities and narratives applies to him as much as it would to a climber like Klein.  It's maybe a smaller group, and appealing to libertarians as a fellow-traveler outsider, but it's still very much there.

My advice to anyone who's already politically "high-information" is to find specialists if you're interested in a topic.  You've probably run through all the usual arguments about abortion, hawk/dovishness, the welfare state, progressive taxation, blah blah blah.  At a certain point the discourse is so repetitive that you don't need to check the back of the textbook for the solutions anymore.  You've stopped learning (or acquiring new talking-points, depending on who's the one with the false consciousness).

But there are a lot of places where you can dig down into particular issues, if you find the people who dedicate themselves to tracking and explaining those issues.  That's why I'll still read Greenwald on torture: when it comes to healthcare he's just a smarter-than-average DU poster, but on detention policies he's got the knowledge and understanding to tell the reader what a new development means, what the historical context is, and what not to be fooled by.  This is basically the principle that got Nate Silver e-famous.

So what blogs like that have I been reading?  Fuckin' none of them!  The last time I was not-depressed enough to want to dive into something, I was reading Arms Control Wonk and Total WonKerr about Iran's (lack of) nukes.  I got Trita Parsi's books on US-Iran relations this year, but those cost money and are written in the dry prose that comes with academic standards of honesty and hedging.  Basically I'm pretty much done with the idea of the all-purpose public intellectual.

You could check out Erik Loomis at Lawyers, Guns, and Money.  He's certainly more leftist than Dem, but it's hard for me to read long posts of inside-baseball about the tatters of the radical labor movement and not see it as navel-gazing at a certain point.  Wish Max Sawicky was still blogging.  He woulda been right in this wheelhouse and was a good Takoma Park boy too.

[benjipwns]

Greenwald's not honest, at least not exceptionally.  When he talks about something outside of his area of expertise he basically picks a position which gels his intuitions, acts really sure of himself, and on the times where he gets called out for overreaching or getting something wrong, writes half a dozen boldface updates rather than admit fallibility or just shut up and retcon the whole incident.  He's got a large, vocally supportive following and a paid gig from doing this.  I think the tribal-social aspect of trying to fit in and reinforce the group identities and narratives applies to him as much as it would to a climber like Klein.  It's maybe a smaller group, and appealing to libertarians as a fellow-traveler outsider, but it's still very much there.

I don't disagree with any of this really, and yes I admit he does play to my biases in some respects, but I think in regards to some...others...he at least has an ideological mission and even if that leads him astray it makes him more "honest" than an Ezra Klein.

No real disagreement with your next two points so I'll cut them.

So what blogs like that have I been reading?  Fuckin' none of them!  The last time I was not-depressed enough to want to dive into something, I was reading Arms Control Wonk and Total WonKerr about Iran's (lack of) nukes.  I got Trita Parsi's books on US-Iran relations this year, but those cost money and are written in the dry prose that comes with academic standards of honesty and hedging.  Basically I'm pretty much done with the idea of the all-purpose public intellectual.

You could check out Erik Loomis at Lawyers, Guns, and Money.  He's certainly more leftist than Dem, but it's hard for me to read long posts of inside-baseball about the tatters of the radical labor movement and not see it as navel-gazing at a certain point.  Wish Max Sawicky was still blogging.  He woulda been right in this wheelhouse and was a good Takoma Park boy too.

This last part is mostly what I was looking for (but former as well). I mean I can scope out everything from MY point of view, but you guys are somewhat reversed from me and I want to know where DO you go to get stuff. And I fumbled trying to say I don't want Klein, Krugman, Kos, some other K, etc. (I used strong words but I stand by it and I really don't think they're writing for anything, as mentioned I think Krugman is writing a political column but trying to play on his long lost economic trade.)

Because I can hit up most of the general sources that get posted here, GAF, etc. in terms of "left" politics but I was wondering if you had anything that wasn't mainstreamed anymore.

I probably just worded my original request wrongly. For example I like Reason, but a lot of the writers there aren't great, it's just the overall coverage and now someone like Balko is at HuffPo, etc.  so I follow them there. Volokh is a good site but I follow links off there.

When I was saying I "honestly don't know" about stuff regarding the "left" I feel like I don't. But everyone I know outside of here sends me to all the same sites (DU, Kos, TPM, etc.). And I get all the arguments I read here and elsewhere, but I wonder if I'm missing better works rather than the summaries. (Since we in the libertarian camp have the same thing.)

I guess mentioning Balko makes me think of a better way to put it.

Reason and Balko's coverage are some of the few places out there you can really get coverage of SWAT/police being dicks and it's not all "BUT THEY WUZ DRUG CRIMNALS" and I guess I was wondering if there's some kind of "left" version of this kind of reporting. On anything, even if it's the capitalists.

I don't really give a shit about Obama/Romney. The least I was looking for is some kind of "left" version of Reason or something.

I probably should have spent more time on my original post.

EDIT: I don't mind reading real hardcore leftism and crap, full out communism. I'm a goddamn voluntaryist after all. It's just the "left" sites are all kind of disgusting MUST LOVE DEMOCRATS type.

Maybe I'm deluded by being in the libertarian family where it's a constant WE MUST SUPPORT GOP vs. NO NO SPLIT OFF debate.

[benjipwns]

I want to rip into libertarianism so hard right now, and yet I really like your sports analysis, benji, so I can't. 

That's odd because me and Mandark's conversation isn't actually regarding libertarianism or any ideology really. It was mostly just a mild misunderstanding.

And in any manner I was asking the "left" to offer some good writers and such. Entirely a white flag situation.

Though your post does remind me that I forgot about an older thread.

Oh, and the stats will exist regardless of your denial of the perfection that is voluntaryism. 

[Mandark]

I'd say liberal activists are more analogous to movement conservatives than to libertarians, in re their relation to the party.  Liberals are the main ideological faction, but have to caucus and contend with a bunch of non-ideological interests.  Libertarians in the GOP are an odd fit in some ways.  Whereas Ron Paul would say stuff that clearly flummoxed Republican audiences in the debates, Dennis Kucinich just came across as a Democrat turned up to 11, who didn't need to worry about trying to win.

In that vein, most Democrats who talk about defecting use the language of whether Obama's "really" a liberal (Matt Stoller's like three editorials away from just chanting "Gooble gobble, one of us!"), the way Freepers would talk about who's a real conservative and who's a RINO.  So it's just the eternal tug of war between a party's ideological base (or any influential but non-majority faction within the party) and the opportunistic demands of the median voter theorem and fundraising demands.

On my less patient days, I have very uncharitable thoughts about Stoller-style nonvoters.  It mostly comes from having known several Nader voters, who were all crowing about beating Al Gore until the troops landed in Iraq, at which point it became a torrent of shameless retconning. 

Daniel Davies is also a really great read, with a good writing style who makes contrarian cases for a lot of things and is clever enough to do it well.  Back in the day he used to blog at his own site, dsquareddigest, at the Guardian's Comment is Free, at Crooked Timber, and at Aaronovitch Watch (very inside-baseball, covering and mocking the Decent Left, the UK's post-9/11 liberal hawks).  Don't know if he's active on any of those these days.  Edge of the American West is cool as an American history blog from a liberal perspective with experts on Lincoln and FDR, which suddenly became relevant when it looked like we were about to have another Great Depression.

There are a ton of environmental, union, education, transit and feminist blogs that cover related issues and keep tabs on local and state level activism and legislation, besides the big federal brouhahas, but you're not going to get a lot of stuff making the case for those causes so much as the nitty gritty of small victories and defeats.

[benjipwns]

I'd say liberal activists are more analogous to movement conservatives than to libertarians, in re their relation to the party.  Liberals are the main ideological faction, but have to caucus and contend with a bunch of non-ideological interests.  Libertarians in the GOP are an odd fit in some ways.  Whereas Ron Paul would say stuff that clearly flummoxed Republican audiences in the debates, Dennis Kucinich just came across as a Democrat turned up to 11, who didn't need to worry about trying to win.

I know what you mean by "liberals" (we're a bit bitter about that) but I may have to stop you on the "non-ideological interests" part. (And I have a good feeling you agree on that.)

Ron Paul recently got shut out of the GOP convention (despite the rules) and was demanded to endorse and support Romney. So that was fun.

Those of us who have actual principles don't have long-term friends in either party.

In that vein, most Democrats who talk about defecting use the language of whether Obama's "really" a liberal (Matt Stoller's like three editorials away from just chanting "Gooble gobble, one of us!"), the way Freepers would talk about who's a real conservative and who's a RINO.  So it's just the eternal tug of war between a party's ideological base (or any influential but non-majority faction within the party) and the opportunistic demands of the median voter theorem and fundraising demands.

Democrats are just getting on board with Republicans of the last 40 years.

Doubt they abandon.

On my less patient days, I have very uncharitable thoughts about Stoller-style nonvoters.  It mostly comes from having known several Nader voters, who were all crowing about beating Al Gore until the troops landed in Iraq, at which point it became a torrent of shameless retconning.

Don't worry, their single vote didn't matter.

Gore should have challenged the entire state rather than trying to steal it.

Daniel Davies is also a really great read, with a good writing style who makes contrarian cases for a lot of things and is clever enough to do it well.  Back in the day he used to blog at his own site, dsquareddigest, at the Guardian's Comment is Free, at Crooked Timber, and at Aaronovitch Watch (very inside-baseball, covering and mocking the Decent Left, the UK's post-9/11 liberal hawks).  Don't know if he's active on any of those these days.  Edge of the American West is cool as an American history blog from a liberal perspective with experts on Lincoln and FDR, which suddenly became relevant when it looked like we were about to have another Great Depression.

Cheers, I liked Crooked Timber.

Am curious what a "liberal perspective" on Lincoln is...

There are a ton of environmental, union, education, transit and feminist blogs that cover related issues and keep tabs on local and state level activism and legislation, besides the big federal brouhahas, but you're not going to get a lot of stuff making the case for those causes so much as the nitty gritty of small victories and defeats.

There is value there, smallest stage, biggest performance type thing.

[Eric P]

What kind of columnists/people/blogs/etc. do you go to?

I've recently fallen in love with  Jacobin

http://jacobinmag.com/

and I've been a day 1 supporter of The New Inquiry

http://thenewinquiry.com/

edit: I seem to have misunderstood that for which you were looking.  my mistake.  I do read Ezra et al but I don't really take it all seriously.  A bit too "horse racey" for my tastes.  I do love the above magazines though.

oh, ha ha, I also read The Exiled.  It's something else.  http://exiledonline.com/

[benjipwns]

Thanks, Eric, will check them out.

[Mandark]

Phil Nugent does nice political essays on a personal level on his blog, when he bothers with that (he's got a gig at the AV Club now).  Be prepared for three typos a piece, though.  If you want some fun factional squabbling, the big fight is between education "reformers" and union supporters, which you can find all over.

And yeah, I'd say non-ideological for the most part.  At least not ideological the way progressives, evangelicals, or libertarians are: groups of people who want to rearrange society based on some core principles/beliefs/delusions.  The dreaded special interests, the inertia of public opinion (don't cut any social programs but don't start any either!), the momentum of the state and its institutions, etc.  Evan Bayh wasn't holding up student loan changes cause of some deeply held values; he was just protecting the rentiers in his state.

[Eric P]

I also used to read Bleeding Heart Libertarians but it seemed to go for shock value rather than real value.  It tries to position itself as finding the common ground behind leftist and libertarian thought but it would do things like this

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/11/dear-left-corporatism-is-your-fault/

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

These days I primarily browse through Calculated Risk, Right Wing Watch, and Nate Silver's 538 NY Times blog.

I can't take Ezra Klein seriously because I remember chatting with him at length about the Game Cube over AIM.  I'm glad he is successful though in what he is doing.

[Great Rumbler]

 

[TakingBackSunday]

I can't take Ezra Klein seriously because I remember chatting with him at length about the Game Cube over AIM.  I'm glad he is successful though in what he is doing.

WHAT

that's fucking amazing 

[benjipwns]

I also used to read Bleeding Heart Libertarians but it seemed to go for shock value rather than real value.  It tries to position itself as finding the common ground behind leftist and libertarian thought but it would do things like this

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/11/dear-left-corporatism-is-your-fault/

I gave those guys a chance but there was always something off about them, I forget when it was, but something about them really just rubbed me the wrong way. It was basically as if they wrote a column saying the problem with Hitler was that he singled people out instead of just doing it willy nilly.

The bulk of their premise was off from the start.

I'm kinda on board with parts of  that post though. 

These days I primarily browse through Calculated Risk, Right Wing Watch, and Nate Silver's 538 NY Times blog.

I can't take Ezra Klein seriously because I remember chatting with him at length about the Game Cube over AIM.  I'm glad he is successful though in what he is doing.

Nate is good but that's not really policy, just horse race stuff which I don't mind.

What did Klein think about the GameCube? COME ON MAN!

If you want some fun factional squabbling, the big fight is between education "reformers" and union supporters, which you can find all over.

I can walk out the door basically and find this.

That is an interesting thing though and might help, what "left" types are discussing the whole pension/municipal/etc. budget clusterfucks?

I would love to read places other than Reason and Balko that are exploring how the cops were given insane pensions, and then fuck people up with no consequence and now everyone in the state has to pay for their retirement at age 45. I would LOOVVVVEEEE to find out what the "left"/Democrats are saying about this shit. But I find mostly silence or support.

Does anyone know why The Onion stopped In The Know?

[benjipwns]

To get this thread off me and my dumb crap, this is apparently the most popular blog post in the country:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/150781/

WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN. Just for the record, this is what it looked like for a man who made a film that made the Obama Administration uncomfortable:

(Image removed from quote.)

Here’s the key bit: “Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.”

When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.

He won’t resign, of course. First, the President has the appreciation of free speech that one would expect from a Chicago Machine politician, which is to say, none. Second, he’s not getting any pressure. Indeed, the very press that went crazy over Ari Fleischer’s misrepresented remarks seems far less interested in the actions of an administration that I repeat, literally sent brown-shirted enforcers to launch a midnight knock on a filmmaker’s door.

But Obama’s behavior — and that of his enablers in the press — has laid down a marker for those who are paying attention. By these actions he is, I repeat, unfit to hold office. I hope and expect that the voters will agree in November.

[Dickie Dee]

Well, sounds like you're using "honesty" to mean "strongly worded criticism of their party," so... maybe Zell Miller's got a twitter account?

 

[Great Rumbler]

The President ordered someone arrested taken into custody for his own protection? My God, this is the END OF THE WORLD.

[Boogie]

I would love to read places other than Reason and Balko that are exploring how the cops were given insane pensions, and then fuck people up with no consequence and now everyone in the state has to pay for their retirement at age 45.

lol

[benjipwns]

I admit if police were held to the same standard as "civilians" I'd fight pretty much all battles elsewhere. Especially if the vicious war on drugs ended. But alas, this isn't that libertopia.

So they get to be on the list with all the other things I have no power to change and won't ever be able to change unless I convince someone on a message board by accident.

[Trurl]

These days I primarily browse through Calculated Risk, Right Wing Watch, and Nate Silver's 538 NY Times blog.

I can't take Ezra Klein seriously because I remember chatting with him at length about the Game Cube over AIM.  I'm glad he is successful though in what he is doing.

Was he a Nintendo fanboy?

I have trouble taking him seriously because, even though he is older than me, he will somehow always seem like a kid.  It seems like he is good at synthesizing information about a topic but I have this (perhaps unfair) suspicion that he's not ready for much original serious thought.

[benjipwns]

He has a bachelors in political science, why would you think he's ready for original serious thought?

[Trurl]

He has a bachelors in political science, why would you think he's ready for original serious thought?

It seemed possible because so many people think he is worth reading.  I've mostly ignored him after a few initial reactions where I thought "this guy is a fucking kid."  I'm just humble about my opinion of him because I've never bothered to give him much of a chance.

[Boogie]

I can't take Ezra Klein seriously because I remember chatting with him at length about the Game Cube over AIM.

Didn't you also say that you talked with him about PUA shit too?

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I can't take Ezra Klein seriously because I remember chatting with him at length about the Game Cube over AIM.

Didn't you also say that you talked with him about PUA shit too?

Yeah, he was a pretty big fan of fast seduction 101.  I think I was bitching to him about how I couldn't get laid and he was telling me about all of the pussy he got with by using it.

To be fair, he was a dumb teenager at the time.  He kind of disappeared off the map for a while and then created a political blog with some other guy and the rest is history.  Still happy for him though and I'm curious if he will run for political office and whether that stuff will come up.

Edit: Yeah, he was a big Nintard.  He said he was "stoked" (I remembered him using that word) about the Game Cube and really wanted THPS3 on it, which is odd because I don't remember the GC version being superior.

[AdmiralViscen]

Mods, please change thread title to "Q&A with Benjipwns"


Actually seriously change the thread title

[Himu]

Mods, please change thread title to "Q&A with Benjipwns"


Actually seriously change the thread title

Iie.

[Phoenix Dark]

I like Juan Cole's blog/site, and Little Green Footballs. Haven't seen them mentioned much here recently.

[Mandark]

Juan Cole's blog was literally the first political blog I read.  In the early years of the Iraq war my daily visits were his site, Talking Points Memo (back then it was basically JMM's personal blog), Billmon, Maxspeak, and Brad DeLong's blog.

Because of Juan Cole I learned about the basics of Iraqi demography, and knew who Moqtada Al-Sadr, Ali Al-Sistani, etc. were way before most media outlets deemed them newsworthy.  Thanks to him, it all made a lot more sense and new developments never really surprised me.  From 2003-4 he was basically my internet hero.

Which goes back to what I said about finding specialists.  He was a billion times more informative than any of the mainstream pundits were at the time, including foreign policy "experts" with no region or country of focus who make their living as pundits or political advocates.  But he's not some supergenius polymath, and when he strays into subjects he doesn't know much about he can get caught saying some uninformed stuff.



PS Can't speak for all leftists, but I'd hazard to guess their perspective on police and firefighter pensions is like libertarian opinions on poverty and racism: not really giving that much of a shit.

[Phoenix Dark]

When I first had the realization that Cole's blog helped me understand and call Iraq events better than TV pundits/print journalists, I was reminded of that Chappelle stand up bit where a Native American tells him the name of his tribe and Chappelle says "you're a hunter gatherer. I learned about you in social studies"

[Mandark]

Yeah, back in the day I remember a lot of op-eds about whether Iraq was really Vietnam, or really Germany.  Cole's blog was one of the few places where Iraq was treated like Iraq.

[AdmiralViscen]

Mods, please change thread title to "Q&A with Benjipwns"


Actually seriously change the thread title

Iie.

Yes, I know the reference. Obama has not brought on a new era of American politics.

[Great Rumbler]

There is no clear correlation between tax cuts for high earners and economic growth, according to a new study by Congress’ nonpartisan policy analyst.

“There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth,” concluded a report by the Congressional Research Service released Friday. “Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth.”

Oh wow, I am TOTALLY SHOCKED.

[Oblivion]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gretchen-carlson-tries-to-salvage-incredibly-awkward-interview-with-former-obama-supporter/

[Joe Molotov]

[Howard Alan Treesong]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/mitt-romney-video_n_1829455.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

I dunno if this is really a smoking gun or not; I mean, we all knew he was a racist asshole already, right?

[Van Cruncheon]

little lord mittens thinks 47% of america are lazy slugs who vote themselves sweet sweet largesse on the backs of hardworking bankers and estate scions.

(they KNOW this because it is exactly what they'd do if they were poor! it's the PROPER sociopath thing to do!)

edit: oops, beat by TREESONG.

[Mandark]

Just saw that on the Mother Jones site.

I expect conservatives to bring up the "clinging to religion and guns" quote from the 2008 campaign.  But Obama's quote, as condescending as it came out, was part of an argument why Democrats had to work for more opportunities and better quality of life for the very people who were voting against them, because economic insecurity was making them take shelter in culture wars.

Romney, on the other hand, is basically saying "not gonna vote for me?  fuck 'em.  buncha parasites anyways."  Pretty deplorable whether he believes it or is pandering, but not surprising.  That bit about people not paying income taxes has been a popular mainstream rightwing meme for a few years now.

[Van Cruncheon]

i hope the obama campaign has their sound editors working furiously to make this into a commercial.

[Mandark]

Also, that video falls into the category of Shit I Won't Post On My Own Facebook Wall Because It Would Immediately Get A Dozen Unironic Likes.

[Mandark]

i hope the obama campaign has their sound editors working furiously to make this into a commercial.

I hope they use pictures of wounded veterans on disability as the background.  And grandmas in wheelchairs.

And puppies.  Puppies pay no income taxes.

[Van Cruncheon]

i had to post it as a subitem under cover of another subject.

[Joe Molotov]

Mitt Romney doesn't care about blah people.

[Mandark]

"My dad, as you probably, know was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico ... and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this," Romney said. "But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. ... I mean I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino."

Putting aside the whole brown-folks-got-it-easy message, I'm amazed at Romney's inability to tell a joke.  Actually, it's more like he doesn't get the concept of what a joke is.  He combines the inhumanity of Data with the insufferableness of Wesley Crusher.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I was gonna use Troi to get in another dig at him, but nobody would accuse the guy of being an empath.

[close]

[Human Snorenado]

"My dad, as you probably, know was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico ... and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this," Romney said. "But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. ... I mean I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino."

Putting aside the whole brown-folks-got-it-easy message, I'm amazed at Romney's inability to tell a joke.  Actually, it's more like he doesn't get the concept of what a joke is.  He combines the inhumanity of Data with the insufferableness of Wesley Crusher.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I was gonna use Troi to get in another dig at him, but nobody would accuse the guy of being an empath.

[close]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Also, TITS

[close]

[Human Snorenado]

What's really funny is that I believe this is like 4 years and a day off from the dame day McCain "suspended" his campaign to save America from the financial crash.  Welp.

[Great Rumbler]

Soledad-chan~