KCRWs Left Right & Center 1.16.09 Show
More Bailout; Geithner, Holder Appointments; Gaza News; W's Legacy; Obama's Inauguration
Citigroup is tanking, BofA gets another bailout, and yet not one single American has received one single dollar for mortgage assistance. Is this taxation without representation? Timothy Geithner: a tax cheat as Treasury Secretary? Eric Holder: Tony’s still troubled by his Marc Rich pardon. There's some movement in the Israel/Gaza conflict--we hope it ends soon. Is it pointless to investigate the Bush administration for alleged high crimes and misdemeanors; would such an investigation portend the end of democracy? And will expectations outweigh the realities facing Obama?
My Groups
-
Music News from KCRW.com Updated: 2 days ago
-
The Global Gig Guide on KCRW Updated: 3 days ago
-
the KCRW Music Library Updated: 3 days ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
There's nothing more idiotic than a white man saying of a black person (as in the statement about Eric Holder) that he "forgot he was black!" To what end does this statement mean? Does the black person in question start losing points?
TAX MAN- You have to ignore a ton of letters from the IRS reminding you that you owe back taxes before you get a face-to-face audience at the IRS office. So to say that one "forgets" to pay the back tax is a flat out lie.
Blankley had to be kidding about his petty objections to Holder the AG candidate, particularly in comparison to all the AGs Republican Presidents have had over the years. And who in the Bush administration told Bush "no" when he wanted to invade and occupy Iraq, do all the civil liberties violations, and other stuff.
Blankley did better on his analysis of the Gaza incursion, which is probably accurate. By the way did anyone see the videohttp://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/palestine120109.html of the young Palestinian woman standing in front of the the Israeli soldiers guns telling them not to shoot Palestinians, in English no less. Blogs say she is actually a Palestinian American and a peace activist. And also that the video may be a few months old. Still a very brave act and pretty powerful stuff. If we had hundreds of thousands of people doing things like that, we might have fewer wars.
As Blankley said, the Israelis could not kill every young Palestinian person who probably thinks Hamas is preferable to Israel at this point. So the Israelis have to make as much use of violence they can, and leave. As the US is finding out in Iraq, and probably next in Afghanistan, the power of violence is limited. Only peacemaking solves problems in a lasting way. A good lead in to the MLK weekend.
If the Palestinians used passive resistance and non-violence they would win an Independent state. Using violence and terror has gotten them very little.
In addition to Tony's rude habit of interrupting others with lame jokes or
false jocularity whenever he feels the need to break the flow of an argument
that threatens to unmask his own lies, his insistence that it would be wrong to prosecute the criminal actions of the Bush Administration only proves that the Neo-Con Propaganda Machine he works for is still cranking out the
self-protective talking-points.
I've heard many other Neo-Con mouthpieces trying to dissuade the prosecution
of Bush & Company because such prosecution was "un-American" or a danger to the security of the country. What a crock. Their overplayed reaction to this issue reveals that these guys know that they are crooks, and they know that they are in trouble.
The real obscenity would be to let the crooks get away with their criminal actions, and not to call out people like Tony when he tells lies to confuse the issue. Tony's tactics are becoming so transparent they are almost comical.
What will it take to put these crooks where they belong, and put their lying shills
out of the public eye and ear? Yes, Tony, I'm talking about YOU.
Mr. X is correct. Peace will only come to Palestinians when they standup and stop the terrorists within their own community instead of honoring them...the rest is propaganda, exspecially when it is a replay of reel 2 from several months ago.
The democratic congress spent two years debating prosecution of Bush and ways of ending the Iraq War abruptly and they chose not too. In the end, they would not be able to gain a successful prosecution and they would have occupied too much time that should be focused elsewhere on future matters. Perhaps the congress might have acted on the economic meltdown sooner if they would have focused their attention on business. Let history make the hero or goat out of George Bush. History has a keener and more impartial eye than anyone possesses at this moment.
History is going to judge the conservative movement quite harshly.
Remember how Americans felt when the September 11 attackers destroyed a few buildings in the US? Imagine how the Gazans feel about what the Israelis are doing. Think Hamas looks good to them despite the hardships? Look what Americans were willing to tolerate and do after 9/11.
We continue to consider fighters who don't have big armies and super high tech equipment as "terrorists." They can't fight the US and Israeli armies head on so they fight the way they can. It's hard to get clean shots at a modern Army so they attack the society that support the Army. Essentially the rockets do random damage but they constitute keeping the struggle going. It is reprehensible to injure civilians in this way but how much different are the wars the West wages? Can you justify all the damage we have done to Iraq in order to hang one dictator, who was no longer serving our interests like he used to? The difference between war and terrorism is overblown. The Israeli Army has behaved like terrorists too (the Weather Underground in the sixties tried to avoid injuries to people when they blew things up but most consider what they did terrorism) and so have we when we target someone and the rest of the people who get killed are "collateral damage" to us if not to the people collaterally damaged. We know "collateral damage" will happen and accept it as the cost of war. No doubt they have similar thoughts. Isreal has taught America how to be a terrorized and terrorist state. The 9/11 emotion has worn off some here as we are distant from it while the Israelis are surrounded by the enemies who they continue to make and add to.
As Blankley says, the incursion into Gaza will soon be over. Israel will not kill everyone in Gaza. Hamas will have lots of new recruits. Rockets will get shot off. Weapons (many from the US and the West) will get in. Maybe Israeli hawks will do well in their elections but then where will they be? What is next?
Rightguy probably articulates the Israeli position. They will tolerate a Palestinian state when that State functions like Israelis in Palestinian clothing, that is operates a police state that crushes those who fight Israel. Obviously in the present environment, that won't be an elected or representative government. More like a corrupt autocrat. A Saddam Hussein type leader perhaps. They had such a person in Arafat, and came reasonably close to a possible peace with him at Oslo. A step in the right direction. Rather than take advantage of the opportunity and trying to work out the last distance between the parties, Sharon chose to scuttle it by an enflaming passions by an encursion to the Holy Places in Jerusalem. We have just had various violent conflicts since.
Many believe that Israel is trying to make a two state solution impossible by allowing settlers to expand in the West Bank and connecting them to Israel with secure highways and walls, and is running out the clock until this is accomplished. This will guarantee the indefinite perpetuation of the present conflict, and the indefinite insecurity for the people of Israel.
Again we face the limitations of violence as a way to solve human problems. It goes so far in certain situations (a popular movie raises whether killing Hitler might have tipped the balance of power against his movement and limited the harm that they did) but eventually violence becomes self destructive. Even if War is the Force that Gives us Meaning, meaningful lives are lived out in a status of peace and well being, and that is what people want in Israel, Palestine, and for that matter Iraq and Afghanistan. People can live together despite differences if there are respectful personal relationships, a just social environment, opportunities for a decent life and institutions that promote interdependence. So we need a state for Palestinians that has reasonably equal prosperity, justice and interdependence, the type we have in Europe today. The question is how to get there, particularly given the History of the Holocaust and the mistrust that any Western outsiders will risk anything for Israelis. America has always tilted the field, mostly towards Israel for domestic political and oil geopolitical reasons. A new Administration has an opportunity to show a new direction and may have an unusual window of good will. This will not overcome all the memories and hatreds of the past, and the new ones being created daily. But such things can be overcome, and the West has a lot of resources to bring to bear, if we decide it is important enough.
Hamas wants more dead Palestinians.
They may have the same view of collateral damage as we do. However "Hamas wants more dead Palestinians" sounds like an overstatement. They did have a violent power struggle with Fatah, with the usual divide and conquer results, as well as the usual failure of violence.
But if Hamas wants dead Palestinians, should Israel take the bait and kill Palestinians, particularly with such overkill?
Hamas was elected in Gaza, in large measure for the same reason Republicans did badly in the last two elections here, Fatah was seen as corrupt, inept, autocratic and self serving. Instead of recognizing this as a democratically elected representative government to negotiate with, Israel declared them unacceptable and eventually started a blockade that has imposed a lot of suffering. Then they are surprised at all the rockets. Sure Hamas has anti-Israeli rhetoric and doesn't affirm Israel's rights in the way Israel wants to hear. Neither did Fatah for long periods. That's why we have negotiations. Israel used to promote Hamas against Fatah, and now its the opposite. If the real issues can be settled by the end of occupation and an equal and sovreign Palestinian state, all the other stuff and posturing won't be a problem.
You act like the Palestinians are innocents to their own situation. Every military strike comes as if fired from their own canon, every wall built by their own hand, and every Israeli settlement placed by their own design.
Most people recognize that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were considered symbolic targets for bin Ladin, places from which US economic and military power emanated. Whether any of the white collar workers or firefighters were personally doing anything that bin Ladin objected to (shooting any "rockets" if you will ) didn't matter. They were "collateral damage."
Gaza is a densely populated area with a million and a half people. If all of them are shooting rockets at Israel then Israel is in big trouble, but of course they aren't. This attack has destroyed hospitals, schools, and police stations. It is estimated that half the dead are women and children. Are they guilty or innocent? Or is it ok to just kill anyone unfortunate to get in the way? This is a problem with all these wars, including ours in Iraq. The days when the knights go out and fight each other in a field without involving civilians are long over. And of course the enemies don't come out and stand in the open where we can kill them. There are still major problems with doing this and even the "just war" theory condemns both disproportionality and excessive daths of civilians.
I also don't get the part about the settlements. How do the Palestinians cause Israelis to build settlements? What are settlements but choice of some Israelis (not all Israelis are fans of the settlement process) to get even more land for Israel and perhaps leave the Palestinians in permanent refugee status?
How about this, instead of being all outraged at Israel for killing Palestinians, how about being genuinely scandalized by Hamas' tactic of putting them in the line of fire.
Just War theory doesn't condemn dis-proportionality. I found an interesting New Republic article about this very issue. The Hamas rocket attacks were not going to stop (they never did) and over time, the sophistication of the rockets increased from homemade junk to very fairly accurate long range weapons. It is not a long shot to bet that given more time they would get more accurate.
* Claiming Reagan had a "booming economy".
* Claiming Chimpy wanted to "fix Social Security"
"A real profile in courage. I wonder if she would put herself in front of a Hamas soldier's rocket and tell them not to shoot Israelis?"
Um, because the Palestinians don’t have Israel under illegal military occupation ?
"If the Palestinians used passive resistance and non-violence they would win an Independent state."
Been there, done that.
They tried that for almost three straight years in the '90s. The Israelis just stole more land.
"The tactic used by Hamas right now is to provoke Israel into counter attacks with the purpose of getting as many Palestinians killed as possible."
You are confused.
It is the Palestinians that are COUNTER-ATTACKING against Israel's illegal military occupation.
"How about this, instead of being all outraged at Israel for killing Palestinians, how about being genuinely scandalized by Hamas' tactic of putting them in the line of fire."
Exactly where would you have them GO in one of the most densely populated urban areas on the planet ?
"You act like the Palestinians are innocents to their own situation. Every military strike comes as if fired from their own canon, every wall built by their own hand, and every Israeli settlement placed by their own design."
Gee, I wasn't aware you could post to the internet from another planet.
You must be joking. That's the point. They are trying to provoke an Israeli attack on them so that more civilians will be unwilling "martyrs" for their cause.
Hamas wants dead Palestinians.
I'd like to give you a half-hearted apology Rightguy. In my enthusiasm to cheer the election of Obama, I've spent the last few months bashing the rightwing on this blog and others--blaming them for all society's ills and warning anyone who will listen how dangerous they are to our democracy.
This Gaza-Israeli debate on this board as opened my eyes back up to how dangerous it would be to our country to hand the government completely over to the liberals. It actually makes me afraid for my safety.
So, from now now I will rail equally against both wings while praising Saints in the political middle, like our Lord and Savior Barrack Obama.
Amen.
I understand there are two sides to every disagreement, and this obviously and certainly applies to the Gaza conflict, BUT the liberals defending the Hamas side so vocally on this and other blogs are the same guys and gals that voted for the Ralph Nader in 2000 even though they new it would help a rightwinger like Bush get elected.
With this kind of principled leadership, I think I'll take my chances with the conservatives over the liberals when it comes to national security, defense, military and diplomatic issues.
Of course, I hope and pray Obama remains in the sane middle and governs from the Center Right.
Freudian slip there--I meant to say that I hope Obama governs from the Center-Left on domestic issues and the Center-Right on foreign policy issues.
(I've only recently decided to take the leap over to the center-left from the center-right myself, but this Gaza conflict had got me conflicted again)
I am happy that Obama sounds centris and I pray it does not prove to be political rhetoric.
I have listened for many years to LRC as at times, each panel member has been willing to declare their opposition to policies or positions that their party may take with which they may disagree. Tony seems incapable of this kind of kind of critical thinking. His position seem to be - if it’s right its right.
On the subject of whether or not to prosecute the current administration for authorizing torture techniques, the below link provides some background information and opinion.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/18/prosecutions/
According to Greenwald’s article Tony’s position would be:
“ the standard argument now being offered by Bush apologists (such as University of Chicago Law Professor Eric Posner, echoing his dad, Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner in Chicago) as to why prosecutions are unnecessary -- namely: there is "prosecutorial discretion" that should take political factors into account in order not to prosecute “
Whereas Paul Krugman’s suggestion below is, in my opinion, the correct view.
“I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power”.
Some things are wrong. And when those things are also illegal, there needs be redress.
"No they didn't."
Yep. They did indeed.
For almost three straight years, after the Clinton administration provided monies and resources to beef-up the Palestinians security forces, not a single Israeli was attacked at the hands of a Palestinian. Of course, the Israeli RightWing brought that to a violent end.
"You must be joking."
Not at all.
EXACTLY where would you have them GO in one of the most densely populated urban areas on the planet ?
"Um. No they are not."
You finally got something correct.
After the Israelis killed even more children on Friday, the UN's John Ging stated:
"The question now being asked, is this and the killing of all the other innocent civilians in Gaza a war crime ?"
"Hamas commits the double war crime of attacking schools and hospitals (civilians) for the purpose of provoking an Israeli attack on on them while they hide in hospitals and schools and purposely put civilians in the line of fire."
Hamas attacks schools and hospitals? In Gaza? In Israel?
"The liberals defending the Hamas side so vocally on this and other blogs are the same guys and gals that voted for the Ralph Nader in 2000 even though they new it would help a rightwinger like Bush get elected."
Nader didn't get that many votes. Unfortunately the ones he got in Florida helped make the difference in the winner take all electoral college system. Nader was an attractive alternative choice to some people who thought that both Clinton and the Republicans were too corrupt and on the take to businesses. Probably many in Florida ended up regretting their choice. If you were in a state that was not "in play" he might have been a reasonable protest vote to politics as usual.
Anyway, the Gaza issue not only worsens rather than improves the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but causes a humanitarian disaster and, as Blankley noted, does nothing to resolve the essentially political conflict about what should happen to the Palestinians. The answer is that they should have a state, presumably governed by a democratically elected government, which is what Hamas is. Instead the Palestinians are either occupied or, in Gaza, besieged. This state needs to be prosperous and for best results economically interdependent with Israel. There really aren't alternatives other than more of the same. Israel might hope for a model like happened to the Native Americans here, who are divided up into reservations of the worst land with a mix of sovreignty and dependency. (Apartheid South Africa is another model, but that wasn't so great either). That's not going to happen because there are too many Palestinians, including the growing population within Israel's border which will eventually force them to choose between being a democracy and a Jewish state. By the way, Israel is attempting to ban the two major Arab-Israeli political parties at least in part for wanting Arab equality within Israel and a Palestinian State, and no doubt for opposing the invasion. About 1/5 of Israelis are Arabs. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1231866576099 . This is on appeal to Israeli courts. No doubt it resembles the efforts of Bush supporters to ban the Dixie Chicks from the radio for criticizing the Iraq war.
It now appears that Israel has agreed to a cease fire and has begun leaving. We will see if there is some movement for a negotiated settlement.
Ton is too easy a target these days. Let's be fair to the other wingnut on the panel.
In the latest show, Bob "the Sheer" gave about as sophisticated analysis of the media as Joe the Plumber. He suggested that there should have been more "reporting" by the media of Bob's "speculation" about the "motives" of Israel officials concerning the Gaza Conflict. Because "Bob" has gathered a "solid" case of "circumstantial" evidence as "why" Israel "started" this war, the press should be reporting this "fact" not once but over and over again.
When did opinion, speculation and circumstance become equal to "reporting the facts"??
This is basically a residual of the Bush approach to public policy. I guess in Bob's world, we would stop having elections and just put the liberal intellectuals in charge of the government. Stop all this voting nonsense when it interferes with Bob's scewed world veiw.
Inauguration Day should be renamed the American Miracle Day.
On American Miracle Day no shots are fired, no tanks rumble in the streets, no mothers morn the dead of another civil war. Instead, on American Miracle Day one person stands before the Nation, holds up his hand, and recites 36 words. And that's it. Every four years the same miracle works it's wonder in this nation, and I'm always amazed when it happens, how it happens.
Even if your candidate did not win the election this time, every citizen should celebrate the American Miracle every four years on the 20th of January.
God has Blessed America.
A democracy requires elections, but elections do not always lead to democracy.
I listen to this show in part because there's an established civility between you all. For the most consistently disingenuous member of the panel to also be the least palatable conversationalist puts you on thin ice in my book.
"Nader didn't get that many votes. Unfortunately the ones he got in Florida helped make the difference in the winner take all electoral college system."
Actually, Nader was not a factor.
Gore won Florida any way you wanted to count it. As the 'Associated Press' report put it:
"In the review of all the state's disputed ballots, Gore edged ahead under all six scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide."
"Are you talking about Oslo?"
Nope.
Not to mention that Israel would never even negotiate the final status of the Oslo Accords they originally signed in 1993.
I assume this is where you get your quote since you never seem to put links to what you quote. Even the AP report admits that Gore wouldn't win even if using this new method of counting they came up with.
The comment was not directed at the results of the voters' actions, it was directed at the Nader voters themselves. Instead of voting for Gore they made a "statement" vote for Nader, who by all accounts had zero chances of getting even 5 percent of the vote much less win.
They didn't care that they were help electing a rightwing candidate. All because the candidate closer to their views and ideals wouldn't or couldn't meet their every demand and expectation. (as if Nader really would or could have...)
StanH, you're usually a windy but straight-up guy. But I think those comparisons are reallly unfair. I wasn't talking about "hate" between two countries. I was talking about hate on an animalistic level created by whatever past misfortunes and mistakes that may caused them. A murderer might have had a horrible childhood but that doesn't excuse his actions today. No one has saying Israel has never done anything wrong. What you and Bob the Sheer never acknowledge is that the rightwing cult leaders in the Arab want to exterminate the Jews, not just straighten out some misunderstandings about borders.
And by the way, how do you think borders have been established over the course of history? By negotions? It seems you are holding Israel to a higher standard here. Under this reasoning, every country in the world should be forced to renegotiate their borders, and give back land they won in war, even if they were not the ones attacked.
But you and I both know this won't solve the problem. Israelis don't exist to torture Palestinians. All the Palestinians need to do is take back their government from the cultists and stop raising their children to be Jew haters.
It's one thing to develop a hatred because of past abuses and fights, but its quite another for you to formally indoctrinate your children to hate. This is what the rightwingers in Arab countries do.
I have many friends, students, coworkers and even former family members who are Islamic. I don't agree with their beliefs, but every single one of them is a pleasant, friendly, affable, fun, humble person. Some of the best people I've known are islamic to one degree or another. The problem, I agree, is not religious. The problem is ideological and fanatical and cultist.
And until you and other influential people stop makding excuses for, pandering to, endorsing, validating and enabling groups like Hamas and their actions, there will never be a solution.
In the grand spirit you have invoked, I am inspired to call for Blog Miracle Day. That's the day I don't see any leisure-suit-larry webcam photos on any Blog anywhere in the wide world. Then and only then will their finally be lasting peace.
Sarah
I think the whole premise of the show is flawed. If either Tony or Bob gave an ideological inch, it would cease to be LR&C anymore. We all know pretty much what they're both going to say before they open their mouths. Without Arianna, it's just Matt babbling between two unyielding blowhard ideologues.
"The ballots from Florida have been counted many ways and Gore didn't win it ‘every way’. Gore lost, get over it."
Gore won.
Gore garnered more votes in Florida than Chimpy did by every conceivable counting standard. Gore won under a strict-counting scenario and he won under a loose-counting scenario. He won if you count "hanging chads" and he won if you count "dimpled chads". He won if you count a dimpled chad only in the presence of another dimpled chad on the same ballot (the so-called "Palm Beach" standard), and he even won if you count only a fully-punched chad. He won if you count a partially-filled oval on an optical scan and he won if you count only a fully-filled optical scan. He won if you count all the absentee ballots. Even if you used the voting standard from Chimpy's (fake) home state of Texas, Gore won.
No matter how you count it, when you count all the votes, Gore won.
"George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes - more than triple his official 537-vote margin = if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows."
"The new data, compiled by The Associated Press and seven other news organizations, also suggested that Gore followed a legal strategy after Election Day that would have led to defeat even if it had not been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court."
Sorry, but both of those citations only a count the undervotes. Helps if you count all the votes.
"I wouldn't call it a miracle. I'd call it the difference between living in a real democracy and false one."
Speaking of which, Israel doesn't even have a constitution, whereas the Palestinians do.
Only 41 percent of Israelis thought that the war was a success.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090119/wl_mcclatchy/3148508_1
The Israeli RightWing learned NOTHING from their loss to Hizbullah.
Well, I'm not going to say what type of paper I think the so-called Palestinian Constitution is written on. Just because you call it a duck, doesn't mean it's a duck.
But assuming the Hamas is a legitimate political force in Palestine, as you want to promote...then, the Palestines have nothing to complain about. They--meaning all of Palestine--attacked another sovereign country and they lost. Again.
Future advice for the elected leadership of Gaza: in the future, if you absolutely must attack another country, choose one that has a smaller army than you do. Also, try to get some formal alliances first. Take a page from Nato, sign up all the countries you can who will promise to go to war if you're country is attacked.
Otherwise, keep your rockets to yourself.
As for the sancitmonious media. Next time you hear someone in one country is lobbing rockets at a neighbor...if it's just one and it hits in the dessert...apply the "Palm Beach Standard," which says, "if Florida sent a rocket into Cuba or Brazil, would we make a big deal about it...EVERY DAY until they stopped...or would we wait until Cuba and Brazil invaded Miami to start moralizing about how bad Castro is...and why is he attacking us?"
This whole situation is just too bizarre. And the media is most to blame.
The constitutional patriots and duly elected leadership in Gaza have spent the ceasefire punishing their political rivals, according to CNN today. Here's an excerpt:
Go Bob Scheer. You NOW SUPPORT torture, just like Bush. Congratulations. Two days in power and you're already blowing it. Keep up the great work and one-sided rhetoric.
I make a statement about two people from different ideologies and religions from other countries who can live in peace with each other after they move to America, and you turn it into some religious amalgam of gobble-D-gook.
The point is when people know each other as individuals, they see each other as people. When people identify themselves as religious groups, countries, and races, they lose their objectivity and inevitably kill each other.
By-the-way, why do you think I'm Christian? I could be Zoroastrian.
I agree with you here but I don't think killing each other is inevitable; I'm just tired of all the nationalistic "our country is the greatest on Earth" and God-loves us more type stuff. The racist gook comment was over the line, though, and what does cannabalism have to do with anything???
But, yes, I guess I do think you are a Christian, but my point's still the same if you're not.
Racist: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.
Amalgam: a mixture or blend.
Lord (Budha), get a dictionary.
It's funny your, "our country is the greatest place on Earth" comment quotes a Vietnamese refugee I interviewed yesterday. He came to the U.S. after living through the Vietnam War. He said, "the U.S. is the greatest place to live in the World and people born here take many things for granted, they're too critical of our country, and have no idea what it's like elsewhere."
Now, my post didn't contain anything about us being greater than them, or God loving us more than them. That's your interpretation of my comment about human nature in the absence of prejudice.
To quote The Simpsons: "Stop going to Sunday school so much, you're too judgmental."
Newsweek concluded about the recounts you like so much:
Gore lost and all the counting in the world won't change that.
Its not about a political vendetta, its about upholding the rule of law and rectifying the imperial presidency. If Obama's lawyers made a "good faith" argument that it was necessary for national security for Barack to go around DC raping and murdering, and he did, I would expect there to be criminal charges. The only difference between raping and murdering and what the Bush admin. did is a matter of severity, and I would argue its not even that huge of a difference. The Bush admin. effectively DID authorize rape and murder in Abu Graib.
Or perhaps if it must be limited to 30, stop trying to cover every headline and just tackle 3 issues per week. I completely agree that just when it starts to get really good, it ends.
The other thing I'd like to see is that probably every other show Matt says, "some day well have to dedicate a whole episode to this," which is such a hollow thing to say because there will never be a whole episode devoted to anything but "this week's headlines." So maybe in slower news weeks, they could do like a 5-7 minute lightning round to cover the headlines, and then devote the other 25 to the big issues. That one episode devoted entirely to the future of capitalism was by far the best episode EVER. Must we suffer a catastrophic meltdown just to get a single topic show every now and then?
Thanks.
More debatable but pretty darn clearly against the law, is that little torture thing? Waterboarding is unanimously, across the world, defined as torture. The united states has charged foreign interragators with war crimes for water boarding US troops. The only reason its even debatable is because the David Addington's and John Yoo's of the world seem to have this interpretation that as long as the President's lawyers advise him that something is legal, he's not violating the law by doing it, even if it is explicitly outlawed. That's why I used the rape and pillage arguement, because the only LEGAL arguements in defense of the administration (that he can break any law in the interest of "national security") would also have to apply to rape, murder, genocide, and anything else that we would clearly not allow the executive branch to do for any reason. I guess they would say, "of course the President isn't allowed to torture, its just that we choose not to define water boarding and stress positions as torture."
That's a hard argument to make when we have defined it as such throughout history and in the trials of Japanese interragators.
Matt - For some reason my iTunes does not download LRC - it stopped a couple weeks ago. Have you had others with this issue? All my other Podcasts download just fine.
The iTunes error # is 8004.
Thanks.
-Sarah, producer/bloginatrix
Obama said we should put away our childish ways. I guess I'm doing the opposite. But, hey, I'm a rebel.
But I'll try to state my point more clearly as I can see I didn't express myself very clearly.
I object to the word "miracle," which implies a "gift from God" when in fact a good democracy requires sticking to our values not matter how difficult or harmful to ourselves in the short term. Individually, we may experience miracles in our lives. But governments aren't miracles. They are one hundred percent in the human domain.
God doesn't take sides in football games or in political contests.
We should give ourselves credit for how great a country America is, not God. He doesn't need our credit. Likewise, we need to accept the blame when we allow our great country to torture people and do other not-so-great things.
Maybe someone from Viet Nam doesn't understand that. Maybe his life was so Hell-like before he came to America that it just SEEMed like Heaven when he got here. If I were his friend, I would tell him I appreciate the sentiment that we shouldn't criticize America so much, but that's part of our greatness, thank you very much.
What is torture?? People will be debating the exact definition of when something crosses the line into torture, some will not consider waterboarding torture and others will. The point is that there was no specific law that forbade waterboarding, to pinning Bush down on this definition will be difficult, if not impossible.
The abuse in Abu Ghraib was investigated and was carried-out by a small group of sadistic guards. Implicating Bush in this matter would be impossible, if they could not implicate the guard's chain of commanders.
A trial and investigation into these matters would dredge up many negative things associated with the Bush administration, but it would not result in anything more. Right now, our country has more important things to focus on. Let it go.
Miracle doesn't necessarily mean it's divine.
Miracle:
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency : the miracle of rising from the grave.
• a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences : it was a miracle that more people hadn't been killed or injured [as adj. ] : a miracle drug.
• an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something : a machine which was a miracle of design.
I agree.
"Well, I'm not going to say what type of paper I think the so-called Palestinian Constitution..."
What's "so-called" about it ?
It is internationally recognized.
Israel doesn't even have a constitution.
"But assuming the Hamas is a legitimate political force in Palestine, as you want to promote..."
Except I've never promoted Hamas.
"They--meaning all of Palestine--attacked another sovereign country..."
I'm afraid not.
They counter-attacked against Israel's illegal military occupation, as permitted under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
"No, Gore lost."
I’m afraid not.
"...and all the counting in the world won't change that."
No, all the votes only needed to be counted once.
Again, your feeble citations did not count all the votes.
Hi !
I have found your article about Bank of America. You can check out the reviews and comments about Bank of America at Pissed Consumer website. You might find it interesting.