Setting the Record Straight on Playground Bullies
To set the record straight, I do not believe all playground bullies become right-wing Republicans when they grow up, nor do I think all right-wing Republicans were playground bullies when they were young. Nor, for that matter, am I at all convinced that left-wing Democrats are innocent of bullying, either as adults or when they were children.
I feel compelled to say all this because of a short interview I gave to Deborah Solomon of the New York Times Magazine, which was published last weekend. In it, I mentioned that I had been bullied when I was a youngster, mainly because I was very short. She then asked me "what do you think playground bullies grow up to be?" With my tongue planted firmly in my cheek, I answered "Right-wing Republicans."
For the last few days my email has been inundated with angry messages from self-defined right-wing Republicans, taking umbrage at my remark. Apparently they did not see the humor in it. A majority of the emails have been civil, but a large minority have been, well, how shall I put it? Filled with the sort of epithets and threats I last heard on the playground.
I feel compelled to say all this because of a short interview I gave to Deborah Solomon of the New York Times Magazine, which was published last weekend. In it, I mentioned that I had been bullied when I was a youngster, mainly because I was very short. She then asked me "what do you think playground bullies grow up to be?" With my tongue planted firmly in my cheek, I answered "Right-wing Republicans."
For the last few days my email has been inundated with angry messages from self-defined right-wing Republicans, taking umbrage at my remark. Apparently they did not see the humor in it. A majority of the emails have been civil, but a large minority have been, well, how shall I put it? Filled with the sort of epithets and threats I last heard on the playground.
posted by Robert Reich | 9:37 PM
118 Comments:
Not surprised by the mail from those apparently angry at your attempt at 'humor'.
But in truth and in fact, bullies, seldom grow up.
Picking on and ridiculing those unable to defend themselves has merely moved from the playground into the political arena.
I see very little difference between pantsing someone and swiftboating them.
And that proves that playground bullies DO grow up to be "deciders" who eviscerate the Constitution and use profane language.
They're swell, God-fearin', family values folks, I tell you.
tt
I had to chuckle, but your "tongue in cheek" remark is the type that someone like myself could make but someone famous like yourself would be hammered for making. :-)
Actually, the real playground bullies probably end up either homeless or in jail and probably wouldn't know what a "Republican" or a "Democrat" was. :-)
You touched a nerve, that's all. Self-defined right-wing Republicans are feeling a goad and reacting in anger, and hiding behind anonymous email. I bet if you'd met them in person, the right wing Republicans would have admitted to you that you are correct. Well, maybe not, but the vitriol would have diminished.
Let's see what perspective we cab put the emails into, other than Delete. Phil Gramm is a jerk. I've often said the unemployed and underemployed should put their bills on Elaine Chao's desk. Let the dimwit US Labor Secretary hire Roger Ailes and Phil Gramm to help her open her mail. After she leaves office, route mail to her via Mitch McConnell (R-Ky). He's up for re-election this year. I lived in Kentucky back when he was the first US Senate candidate to use Roger Ailes to craft his ad campaign. In the past year, one of Mitch's protege's lost an election, Kentucky has elected a Democrat governor, and there's a Ditch Mitch website. Mitch is probably looking for a lobbying gig in the same way Robert Dole joined the DC law firm Allen and Byrd.
For Jesse Helms memorial. I volunteered at a local Research Triangle area hospital. For men who smoke, let me warn you that when you are limping off to sneak a cigarette, IV pole in tow, you will have every RN taking care of you cussing you out and throwing out your cigarettes. Your family won't be there, and neither will Big Tobacco.
What goes around comes around. Given the racism Jesse Helms advocated, I watched with amusement while men snorted and stomped, eager to be released from their IV poles and dismissed from their hospital stay. The African American nurses who were their RNs saw their other patients, did their charting, and ate their lunch, while the men fumed away. So take your radio with you and listen to Rush Limbaugh at 12:06 pm every afternoon, and enjoy the racism. What goes around comes around. Complain to the hospital admins all you want, because in North Carolina there is a nurse shortage and your complaints will fall on deaf ears. Every African American woman who is an RN has income in trumps, no thanks to Jesse Helms.
PS: I'm well aware of the right-wing ideas on government funding for education programs. In another career life, I worked in Student Special Services, Upward Bound, Talent Search-all part of the Pell Grant (BEOG) from Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty (the best kind of war, correct?). We had conferences; I visited North Carolina colleagues while Jesse was in the Senate. Right-wingers didn't want to spend money on those education programs back then.
What I find amusing is the Republicans who want to spend trillions of dollars in Iraq, the benefits of which Americans will never see. In honor of the fear-mongering Republicans want to conduct, here's some quantification. Iraq is the size of California. For trillions of dollars spent there, what return do you want on your money? For Al Qaeda, what should the headcount be , in an area the size of California, after 6 years of Republican mismanagement? How "fear"-ful is it when Donald Rumsfeld is forced to resign in disgrace? How much danger were we in? What should the headcount of Al Qaeda be reduced to? And if it's not reduced, why do you want Republicans running anything for another 4 years?
When will the left wing include height challenged people, especially males, in their discriminated against categories? It does happen.
Dr. Reich; What in the world are you doing?!!
This is exactly what the ring-wingers do! They bully the media and individuals into some type of apology for something that required no apology, and you fell into the trap! Now you've given the appearance that you said something wrong by expressing a satirical sense of humor.
By screaming loud enough, they accuse the media of being Liberal, and what do we get? A "fair and balanced" approach where factless, absurd statements, and outright lies by right wingers are given the same weight in the media as actual factual information and well thought-out opinions.
Liberals keep caving in to the right wing screams and they compromise reason with stupidity. Are we at the point where organized screams by these playground bullies will be able to drive policy in an Obama administration? I would never have guessed that they could drive commentaries on what should be well reasoned blogs. This commentary shouldn't have been some type of "clarification", it should have been about how the right wing gets it's way with their scream teams!
You were right the first time.
It's not that all right-wing Republicans were once playground bullies. It's more that a large percentage of right-wing Republicans belonged to the 'in' groups of their high schools. This is why they are so fond of 'groupism'---the habit of comparing your group favorably to those outside of your group. Adult Republicans are fond of groupism in any of its popular political forms. The most obvious is patriotism. Republicans are always the most patriotic Americans, and that must mean that there is something wrong with the 'patriotism' of everyone else.
Of course, Republican groupism at its finest surfaces when they compare their worthy selves to those damned Liberals, the dim-witted educated morons who were born to ruin everything they touch. You see, we are talking about the essence of Republican political philosophy: They do want to divide America. They know its their only chance of getting elected. Their goal is to persuade the Swing Voters out there that "You don't want to be a member of their group, do you?" It's the kind of groupism gave the Republicans the south, and national status as the "majority party."
Perhaps the most infuriating form of Republican groupism is their dead-on imitation of the biblical Pharisees. You know the Pharisees, the group in Jewish society that relied so heavily on publicly paraded sanctimony? The guys that used to pray in public, instead of the closet as Jesus recommended. The guys who were always quick to point out the sins of others, implicitly praising themselves for possessing virtues that others lacked.
Interesting that Jesus didn't use up any of his precious time on earth to put in a special condemnation of either abortion or homosexuality. He did, however, save his strongest words of disapproval for the hypocrisy (and groupism) of the Pharisees ("Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees..."). It really does seem as though some things bothered Jesus more than other things.
What the Republicans do---with impressive effectiveness---is merely an extension of what they used to do in high school. Maybe that really is the whole point.
You WERE right the first time. But for extra diplomacy points you can add that not all Republicans were playground bullies, but the ones who were grew up and joined the GOP.
Speaking of bullies, Investor Business Daily didn't arrive today, but the Wall Street Journal reported on airlines asking cutomers to complain to Congress about rising oil costs. Evidently the request worked: Capitol Hill was jammed with calls and emails from passengers. However, the WSJ also reported that the Financial Services Industry is going to fight back against the Airlines Industry. In this hilarious battle of special interests, you can decide who is the bully.
As one who faces management regularly from the labor side of the table,and one who knew the bullies from the losing side of the fight, I would say your assesment of republicans was spot on, no tongue in cheek needed.
Every time I see these upper level dweebs, I see the reflection of a bully. They could be that held-back-at-least-one-grade, father abused overgrown neanderthal or the rich piggie, conceited, trust fund baby, but they all cut from the same cloth.
The only democrat I would say was probably a child bully was Lyndon Johnson, and perhaps James Carville, although he might be a bully victim who is just better at the payback than most of us.
kayxyz asks,
“How much danger were we in [from al Qaeda]?”
The (Bi-Partisan, International) short answer is found here.
But, rest easy because, just last week:
“The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium [aka yellowcake] reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.”
Just think Abu Ghraib!
Your playground comment also explains why most cops and soldiers are right-wing Republicans.
I think your were dead on, and they touch on what's wrong with this very sick country.
Let's not forget the hangers-on, the dweebs who get off on sharing vicariously in the strength of the bullies -- the big example here has gotta be Karl "I lost my virginity on sloppy seconds at a frat party" Rove
I have a book recommendation for Brooklyn.
Look on the bright side. At least there are some Republicans who are reading your stuff.
You might get some insight into the Republican (and Democrat) mindset by taking the quizes at yourmorals.org. Doing so myself convinced me that groupism is indeed Republican, is not always bad (because it is an evolved survival trait), and that 99.9% of us form our political views from gut level reactions to early experience, not from rational thought.
Well sbvor,
I don't think the military should get credit for putting a country back together -- after they first ripped it apart without cause.
That's called cleaning up your own mess.
Such arrogance to tell people that you're defending their freedom, and hope they worship you for it!
Doc:
The biggest failing of conservatives is that they have no sense of humor. I thought your answer was the only appropriate answer to a somewhat inane question.
kayxyz:
On a roll today eh?
Take extreme umbrage to your smoking rant however. Should I be faced with that situation let the RNs be forewarned to get the hell out of my way. They can cuss at me all they want but they best not even come close to trying to throw away my cigarettes. To your point RNs are in short supply and they don't need to be risking their lives trying to get my cigs.
Am shocked at those statements from a neighbor.
Brooklyn suggests we invaded Iraq
“without cause”
I have a post for Brooklyn (who seems to harbor an irrational hatred for both cops and soldiers).
sbvor:
You keep trying to broach the Iraq War issue again and again. Been there, done that, and all your arguments, documented or not, have been dispelled.
It was a stupid idea entered into by a cadre of stupid men who couldn't see past the end of their noses.
Bury it! Find some other ignoramous subject to wail about, you seem to find many.
Dr. Reich,
Playground bullies are mental infants while you sir are a giant. I do enjoy your humor. It is too bad that some people don’t understand it. I get many lame joke emails from self-defined right-wing Republicans, but none about the issues.
Art,
So-called “journalists” invented an anti-war narrative.
But, the objective, bi-partisan, internationally recognized facts prove that narrative to be unmitigated fiction (aka propaganda).
sbvor:
Forget "jounalists". Had they done their job in the first place we likely wouldn't be there or have been there.
All your references are to outdated, superceded documents. You have no viable arguments. It's just more of your ranting and arrogance.
Again, it is a shame that someone with so much time on their hands can't produce something meaningful.
Oh it's not an irrational hatred, sbvor.
The splintering of the libertarian wing of the GOP from the rest of the party is indictitive of how modern conservatives value the American *brand* above the liberties of individual Americans.
My pride is not at all wrapped up in whether we rank number one, two or twenty in terms of military power. It's a very liberating state of mind actually -- you know, to live without the Abu Ghraib-style sexual frustrations that plague right-wing Republicans. The military's homophobia covers for the homoeroticism that, darn it, Jesus supposedly told us to repress (although to be an unmarried virgin at 30 in his day and age!)
Shoot, I forgot tie Larry Craig and Mark Foley into my last post about Abu Ghraib
Art,
You know as well as I do that the ONLY item from my post which you even allege has been “superceded [sic]” is point #2.
You also know that to believe that point #2 has been superseded requires Democrats to examine the HIGHLY CONTESTED, PURELY PARTISAN 2006 report and:
1) Find Saddam & a tiny few of his closest cronies more credible than our own CIA.
2) Believe the recantation of the known terrorist al-Libi (when the textbook recantation is straight from the al Qaeda Operations Manual).
3) Utterly ignore the 11 OTHER independent sources of the SAME intel (as described in the utterly uncontested, truly bi-partisan 2004 report). See Chapter XII.
The FACT is that NOBODY at the CIA has EVER indicated they find al-Libi’s recantation to be more credible than his prior testimony that Saddam trained al Qaeda in the use of Biological AND Chemical WMD.
The FACT is that NOBODY has even ALLEGED that ANY of the 11 OTHER sources of the same intel have been discredited. The ONLY people who have embraced the utterly unsupported assertion that Saddam did not train al Qaeda in the use of Biological and Chemical WMD are Congressional Democrats (and their blind, ignorant followers).
Sorry pal, but Coulter got it right (in SPADES)!
This post has been removed by the author.
Brooklyn sez:
“Oh it's not an irrational hatred [which he harbors towards ‘cops and soldiers’]”
I take it then that Brooklyn does harbor a hatred for cops and soldiers, but he/she considers it to be a rational hatred?
Yep, Coulter got it right (as always).
If there are Dems out there who are not as far gone as Brooklyn, I will, again, recommend this book.
Wow, we really are a nation of whiners...
I think the problem with Coulter's (and others') analysis, sbvor, is that you conservatives are convinced that your ideas of patriotism (white, Christian, Chevy-driving) are the only true ones out there.
Coulter says that liberals always side with America's enemies. Well that doesn't mean anything to me if conservatives are always the ones needlessly leaping out in front to define who our enemies are. (Actually, I think it's a very small and crafty group among your kind that programs most of you into believing who your enemies are.)
So if I end up siding with those "enemies," you can whine about treason all you want, but I'll die in a heartbeat for my beautiful little corner of this great land -- because I'm an American -- and your kind sure aren't welcome in my neighborhood, no matter how hard you waive that star-spangled piece of cloth. And when push comes to shove, who (God forbid) I end up fighting against might look nothing like the Russkies, the Chinese, the Muslims, the Mexicans, or any of the other groups you've been taught to hate.
I love a lot of the people in this country; I really dislike a lot of them too. I'm sure I'd love a lot of the people in Iran; and I'm sure I'd really dislike a lot of them too. I'm inclined to gather with all the people I like, regardless of passport -- and fight against all the people I dislike, regardless of passport.
Makes a whole lot more sense to me that way.
Now if you want to strictly compare legal systems in the abstract, then maybe it would make sense to me to compare one nation with another. But when you (and Coulter) start talking about "enemies," well then, we'll just have to see how it goes.
Brooklyn,
Why does it not surprise me to learn that you would not welcome me in your neighborhood?
I like reading the financial blogs. Here is food for thought, especially given the FBI has arrested people connected to housing and organized crime.
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=365
From: The Fed: Dishonest or Incompetent?
"The supremacy of the central banking-warfare investment model that has ruled our planet for the last 500 years depends on being able to combine the high margin profits of organized crime with the low cost of capital and liquidity that comes with governmental authority and popular faith in the rule of law. Our economy depends on insiders having their cake and eating it too and subsidizing a free lunch by stealing from someone else. This works well when the general population shares in some of the subsidy, grows complacent and does not see the “real deal” on how the system works. However, liquidity and governmental authority will erode if the general population becomes aware of how things really work. As this happens, they begin to understand the power of innovative technology and re-engineering of government resources to create greater abundance both for themselves and other people. As this happens, they lose faith in the myth that the current system is fundamentally legitimate. This jeopardizes the financial markets that depend on fraudulent collateral and practices to continue to work. It also jeopardizes the wealth and power of the people who are winning with financial fraud."
Her take on the series of asset bubbles can be summed up as follows:
"This consensus is made all the more powerful by the gush of growing debt used to bubble the housing and mortgage markets and manipulate the stock, gold and precious metals markets in the largest pump and dump in history — the pump and dump of the entire American economy. This is more than a process designed to wipe out the middle class. This is genocide — a much more subtle and lethal version than ever before perpetrated by the scoundrels of our history texts."
Strong words, indeed. I'm still digesting the contents of her web site and am interested to hear comments from the iTulip community on it. Give yourself an hour to read it.
Do you work for the Conservative Book Club, sbvor?
Anyways, no ad hominem here: I take it back -- you'd be very welcome in my neighborhood. (At least until you started preaching about who we should hate and bomb, and which hooded orange jumpsuits we should photograph ourselves sodomizing.) You could be a sweet little old lady for all I know.
kayxyz,
GEEZ! More Rosie O’Donnell style conspiracy theories masquerading as insights from the intelligentsia.
Your recommended blog, (which, I am certain you find to be emotionally satisfying), opens by saying:
“the Fed has been lying about the housing bubble for years by claiming it didn't exist”
FACT:
IF there was a housing bubble, the loss from top to (apparent) bottom rounds up to a 16% decline in the median home value (which has gone up in each of the last 3 months).
Source:
This spreadsheet ("Single-Family Only Spreadsheet for Database Work”) downloaded from this web page.
Dose of REALITY:
Again, all of this housing hysteria is blown WAY out of proportion.
The (incredibly minor) recession of 2001 was initially triggered by the bursting of the single largest speculative bubble in the entire history of humanity (the dot.com bubble). From top to bottom, the NASDAQ lost over 70% of it’s value. But, even then, it took the attacks of 9/11 to actually turn 2001 into a (really minor) recession.
If anybody thinks median home values will decrease by a similar amount (over 70%), then we MIGHT be in for another (incredibly minor) recession (IF it is compounded by another major terrorist attack).
Face it, Dems! The recession you hoped for just ain’t happening!
And, your 16% decline in median home values, translated to stock market terms, would only qualify as a simple correction and would not come close to qualifying as a “Bear Market”.
If they can't take a joke, #$@! 'em.
this whole thread illustrates groupism and is littered with name calling and incredibly mean spirited comments.
Some people are mean some people aren't. Some people are fair minded while others are consumed with one sided partisan beliefs. These traits are exhibited every day by both parties.
sbvor:
Not only can you not think, you can't read.
Who exactly is it that highly contested the 2006 report?
My best recollection is that the CIA neither confirmed nor denied Al Libi's recantation. For most things in many of the reports the CIA balked on taking stances on most everything.
Al Libi confessed under torture, he recanted not under torture. Recanting is not just in the Al Qaeda playbook it's in everybody's playbook. Get over yourself. You spout your BS so much you believe it even though you know better.
Even the earlier reports you reference have been muted considerably by later facts.
Give it up, you don't have a case.
Carrot top has not been commenting on the actions of the federal reserve. Maybe you should follow that example and refrain from comedy.
sbvor:
Ann Coulter might be the only conservative dumber than you and that's saying something, cause you're hard to beat.
Of course there is Phil Gramm and Mitch McConnell and, oh yea, Dumbya. Well let's just say you're in good company. I suppose there is something to say for the smartest guy and the dumb guys table. Oops, dumb persons table, sorry Ann.
Anonymous (9:17 PM),
It is often said that “politics is a blood sport”.
Metaphorically speaking, that is correct. In less enlightened circles, it is literally correct.
Engaging in this particular blood sport without, somewhere in the mix, arguing (and substantiating) the facts is what drags the sport down to the children’s playground of the ad hominem.
Art,
“Torture” is in the eye of the beholder.
Not even al-Libi alleges he was waterboarded. He alleges he was made to stand in a confined space. When I misbehaved, I was made to do that as a child. Was I tortured? Should I sue the memory of my parents? Should I seek to prosecute their estate for war crimes?
For so many so-called “Liberals” to so casually toss that word “torture” around when speaking of their fellow Americans while they are still in harm’s way only further demonstrates exactly how correct Coulter was.
As far as we know, only three detainees were ever subjected to waterboarding (and with great results).
In my view, waterboarding is not torture. It is a valid interrogation technique for the worst of the worst who have the greatest potential to give up the most valuable information. Those who insist the information it yields is unreliable are factually incorrect. Those who serve us use this technique VERY seldom and VERY judiciously.
Art,
Yes, in this comment, I linked to the wrong report.
This is the correct link to “the HIGHLY CONTESTED, PURELY PARTISAN 2006 report”.
P.S.) The views of those who “HIGHLY CONTESTED” the 2006 report begin on page 148 (as Adobe Acrobat sees it) of the document in question.
sbvor:
Your talking about the Republican members of the Committee? Jesus is that objective! And at that only four of them and none other than Hatch that I would consider creme of the crop Republicans. You really are a joke.
All the Committee members, save Lott, agreed to the findings and conclusions of the report. That's a Committee made up of 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats. A report prepared and issued when Republicans still controlled the Senate so they had a majority on the Committee.
Four of them added "Additional and Minority Views" which did not dispute any of the primary conclusions of the report but was merely some whining and crying about it being a witch hunt.
They highly contested the purpose of the report not its conclusions.
Are you really that dumb? Or do you just think the rest of us are?
Would have thought by now you would have learned not to challenge me, or to at least come better prepared than you normally are.
sbvor:
First of all, read the damn report! If you're going to condemn it you at least should know what it says.
No one said al Libi was waterboarded. Torture does not begin and end with waterboarding. If you read the report you would see what treatment al Libi contended he was subjected to.
Your peevish rants are made even worse when it becomes apparent you have no clue what you're talking about.
With all your free time take a course! Learn something, anything! Even a little education is better than what you have now.
sbvor:
BTW, I had a link to the report. I told you I've been there done that and I had read most of the report although a while back.
kayxyz:
Thanks for posting this link. Given the date on the commentary, I'm very impressed.
Art,
Any reasonable person who reads the 2004 report and the 2006 report can see that the former was a truly bi-partisan effort to discover the truth and the 2006 report was, indeed, a pathetic partisan witch hunt.
For anybody to believe the findings of the 2006 report, they have to:
1) Find Saddam & a tiny few of his closest cronies more credible than our own CIA.
2) Believe the recantation of the known terrorist al-Libi (when the textbook recantation AND the textbook allegations of “torture” are BOTH straight from the al Qaeda Operations Manual).
3) Utterly ignore the 11 OTHER independent sources of the SAME intel (as described in the utterly uncontested, truly bi-partisan 2004 report). See Chapter XII.
The FACT is that NOBODY at the CIA has EVER indicated they find al-Libi’s recantation to be more credible than his prior testimony that Saddam trained al Qaeda in the use of Biological AND Chemical WMD.
The FACT is that the CIA presented al-Libi’s prior testimony as credible.
The FACT is that the bi-partisan 2004 report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reaffirmed the CIA assertion that al-Libi’s prior testimony was credible.
The FACT is that there are no fewer than ELEVEN OTHER independent sources cited in the 2004 report supporting the same intel that al-Libi provided.
The FACT is that NOBODY has even ALLEGED that ANY of the 11 OTHER sources of the same intel have been discredited. The ONLY people who have embraced the utterly unsupported assertion that Saddam did not train al Qaeda in the use of Biological and Chemical WMD are Congressional Democrats (and their blind, ignorant followers).
The one thing that Right-Wing Republicans have in common with school yard bullies is that they can dish it out but they can't take it.
sbvor:
In the first place you are the last person who should be referencing what a "reasonable" person would see in anything. You and "reasonable" is one more example of an oxymoron.
I have told you I've done this before and with an adversary far more capable than you. I don't wish to invest my time in it again. If you follow all of the continuing reports that have come out regarding Iraq and the pre-war intelligence each one dispels more and more of Dumbya's administration blather.
The 2004 report was prepared long before most, if any, of the Iraq government papers seized after "Mission Accomplished" were translated and reviewed. Some 34 million of them had been reviewed by the time of the 2006 report.
Now, a "reasonable" person would understand that all the testimony accumulated by the intelligence community is a compilation of, he said, she said. By combining various testimonies and coordinating them with documentation, it is believed that some credibility can be established.
1) Notwithstanding veracity, would an Intelligence Officer be less inclined to believe testimony from Saddam or Aziz or al Tikriti than from an essential nobody such as al Libi?
Given all that we have learned about the CIA's knowledge of events pre-war, one might be inclined to believe more in the tooth fairy than the CIA information. Just a thought, check to see what the DIA had to say on the subject and I believe they gave little or no credence to al Libi's confession.
2) Your protestations of al Libi's recantation being false because it might mesh with the Al Qaeda Operations Manual is nothing short of absurd. If we find that his original confession was right out of the Al Qaeda Operations Manual is that to be negated as well. You always have a problem with cause and effect. It is a common failing of a simple mind.
3) I don't specifically recall 11 other testimonies but I do recall one. A young fellow who was a courier running messages back and forth to Ansar al Islam, a very loosely connected Al Qaeda group, interested in fighting the Kurds, a favorite avocation of Saddam's. He was not allowed, under penalty of death, to know what information he was transporting but all of the sudden he became an expert on Iraq strategy in dealings with Al Qaeda. After compiling sufficient information with which to draw conclusions it is not necessary to go back and discredit each and every source of contrary BS.
Iraq was well known for its documentation and nothing found in the documentation seized reflects any support for al Libi's confession. When knowing nothing and faced with torture there is no end to the stories one could make up.
Hell, you know nothing and you're not facing any torture and look at the ridiculous stories you come up with.
The FACT is that NOBODY at the CIA has EVER indicated they find al-Libi’s recantation to be more credible than his prior testimony that Saddam trained al Qaeda in the use of Biological AND Chemical WMD.
The FACT is that the CIA presented al-Libi’s prior testimony as credible.
The FACT is that the bi-partisan 2004 report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reaffirmed the CIA assertion that al-Libi’s prior testimony was credible.
You place a lot of reliability on CIA judgment when in fact they appear to have been inept in much of their pre-war assessments. In defense of the CIA there was a modicum of pressure to measure their intel reports. Again, review the DIA's assessment of al Libi and the whole Iraq/Al Qaeda connection. The DIA is not exactly a wing of the democratic party.
The FACT is that NOBODY has even ALLEGED that ANY of the 11 OTHER sources of the same intel have been discredited. The ONLY people who have embraced the utterly unsupported assertion that Saddam did not train al Qaeda in the use of Biological and Chemical WMD are Congressional Democrats (and their blind, ignorant followers).
An ignorant, typical, absurd statement. The conclusions of the report were agreed to by 7 of the 8 Republicans on the Committee.
It's a dead horse and all your continued beating will not bring it back to life.
Art,
Reasonable people can read the 2004 report and the 2006 report and decide for themselves (as I have).
For me, I find the conclusions reached by our own CIA to be far more credible than the enemy propaganda embraced (as usual) by the Dems.
There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the 2006 report and Hanoi Jane Fonda propagandizing for our enemy during the Vietnam War.
The only relevant FACT is that this nation was built on conquest. First the Indians, now the Iraqis. I would have so much more respect for conservatives if they weren't ashamed of that FACT. I mean, c'mon, own it! Let's just come to grips with how much we kick ass, and then go about rounding up the Iraqis into pens in the Mesopotamian desert so we can start pumping our oil. Do we really give a damn if they get a democracy? Do we really give a damn about the Indians slowly wasting away in our other deserts?
But to pretend that a poor and backwards desert people are threatening us, or that we're invading them for their benefit! Ha!
If we had balls we'd go after the other big dogs on the block: China for trying to steal our military secrets, or Russia because we've got unfinished business with them. But instead we attack Vietnam, Somalia and Iraq. Cowardly!
The Russians smirk when we recall World War iI, because the Eastern Front was where the Germans deployed most of their forces and suffered most of their losses.
So how bout it? Who's ready to fight the Chinese? And who on the other hand would like to send our bloated army over to Iraq and then sit back and complain about gas prices?
I should add that by fighting the Chinese we can't reduce gas prices by eliminating a big source of competiting demand. It's the flip side of opening up new supplies in the Middle East, but we get the benefit of not shaming ourselves by bullying less-than-worthy opponents.
sbvor:
You just keep thinkin Butch.
Excuse me, I meant "can reduce demand"
Once again, "can reduce gas prices"
Oh yeah baby
brooklyn:
You forgot one of greatest conquests. Grenada!
You're right Art, they truly were a mighty opponent. Or the Sandanistas in Nicaragua.
Or even better: the poor illegals rounded up the other day in Iowa after slaving for petty wages for years scooping meat out of hogs' heads so we can enjoy cans of Hormel. And of course deportation wouldn't be enough to put down these impressive forces -- we needed to go the extra mile and lock those breadwinners in prison for a few months just to really put the squeeze on their accomplice (i.e. wives and children)
brooklyn:
"What a country!!!!"
Ladies & Gentlemen,
Thank you for continuing to prove Coulter correct (in SPADES)!
sbvor:
Rest assured it has been our pleasure. We thoroughly enjoy hearing conservatives scream like stuck pigs.
For you the most unfortunate thing is that Coulter makes big bucks spewing her garbage. You, on the other hand, are doing it for free. In both cases all the furor only appeals to a small cadre of folks. The vast majority of us merely laugh hysterically in passing.
You make a good point Art.
Reminds me of what saps most of our soldiers are, since the contractors serving them meals and cleaning the latrines in Iraq are making more money than they are. Not to mention the employees of weapons-makers back home. Or the mercenaries making $500K to guard suits in a Green Zone already heavily protected by the $20K grunts.
And then these saps have to watch McBush drag their feet on updating an ancient GI Bill that doesn't even cover tuition, much less living expenses and books. Support the troops! But not too much!
A thread about bullying and the libs spend their time name calling.
anonymous 1:35:
You really wanted to read and post about bullying? Could maybe you need a life?
Art a layman:
Are you sure that SBVOR is doing his trolling for free? There are other possibilities. Have you ever seen a true believer come back to a site daily and weekly? There's probably something besides faith in an idea driving this man. Money, or maybe the promise of sex with Ann Coulter, immediately come to mind.
That's true-believer TROLL.
Where are all the slutty Democratic women?
Yo! Lefties!
With Obama racing to The Right in preparation for the general election, all you dedicated Left Wing Extremists need to run from Obama and cast your vote for a fellow hardcore extremist.
VOTE GREEN!
VOTE McKINNEY!
Hey Doc (Reich, that'd be), I heard you talking, or loudly arguing, about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And now they're being shored up and saved by the Fed. Are they public? Are they private? Only the decider knows?
tt
Bullies need some of this:
gp
or this: shak
or as a last resort: para
lol
Mr. Reich, please include links, like to the magazine interview, so that lazy readers can quickly find the site. Don't think of it as gauche self-promotion, think of it as a gift to your readers.
Proving, once again, the mean spirited hatred that lurks in the “hearts” of so-called “Liberals”, I encourage readers to examine this lovely post. It appears to have been posted by the same PeterK who commented above.
The hatred of The Left knows no holiday and has no respect for the dead or their grieving friends and family.
Sad, just plain sad (and pathetic, and typical).
sbvor:
Ever the ignorant. Anyone familiar with the old Vidal/Buckley wars would understand Vidal's comments.
I doubt that Buckley, from the grave, would do more than smile with bemusement at his old adversary, knowing full well, should Vidal's hereafter premise be true, that he will soon be joined by an old foe.
It's also likely that Buckley's family expected no more from Vidal and would have been dismayed had he proffered a more genial message.
In intellectual circles existing far beyond your level, which includes almost all intellectual circles, skin is not so thinly defined. Those traveling there appreciate wit and a fine turn of a phrase. Collectively they would abhor someone who expresses his ideas by linking to someone else's.
While we cant generalize about everyone, I will say for a fact that the majority of my friends who are far right wingers are still bullies. I dont know if they were born that way or learned it from their president.
Stay the course Robert.
One should always remember life's lessons. Quite often beneath the steely veneer of bullydom lies a wimp.
It is shocking, but not at all surprising, that anyone would condone the sort of raw, unadulterated, hate and abject disrespect for the dead which I commented on here.
But, nothing from Art or most other so-called “Liberals” surprises me anymore.
Spar all you like in life. But, decent people show respect in death. Sadly, nobody today expects so-called “Liberals” to behave as decent human beings (and, we know why).
Little-Bush and his thugs have become the bullies of the world. They have been involved in encouraging torture, starting an unjustified war, spying on Americans, lying to our allies, usurping the constitution, treason acts againstn persons dissenting from their conspiracies, etc.. etc..
Little-Bush is nothing but a "silverspoon" bully from Texas propped up by daddy and big oil.
Anonymous (12:43 PM),
Congratulations! You have mastered the “art” of regurgitating utterly unsubstantiated Leftist propaganda. What a great accomplishment!
Everyone:
Perhaps we should take a lesson from sbvor. Respect for the dead and grieving should always be the right thing to do.
Conservatives, especially those heroes of sbvor's always show this respect. Why just look at Ann Coulter's respect:
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration
“To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch, ... It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.”
You wrote a column a couple years ago which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean's death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said ask me about my dead son. This is not legitimate political dialogue.*
* Couldn't find the actual quote, this is a quote from Elizabeth Edwards to Ann Coulter on Hardball to which Ann replied; "That was three years ago"
I beseech each of you to read these thoughts; memorize them; recall them whenever a conservative goes to join Reagan and when you write your thoughts about such an event keep in mind the conservative's commandments on respect.
Remember to thank sbvor for bringing this subject to our attention.
anonymous 12:43:
Again, sbvor is correct. Please don't make inane proclamations that are unsubstantiated. Follow sbvor's example and make inane remarks and link them to meaningless information that doesn't substantiate anything either but it looks more professional.
This post has been removed by the author.
Art (1:40 PM)
You seem to have some difficulty with analogies (and the concept of Moral Equivalence). Let me help you out.
The infamous “9/11 widows” deliberately (and disgustingly) politicized the tragic deaths of their husbands. Similarly, the infamous Cindy Sheehan deliberately (and disgustingly) politicized the death of her heroic son (who did not share her views).
Once an individual deliberately, disgustingly and dishonestly politicizes the death of a loved one, the rules of politics apply and not the rules normally associated with respect for the dead.
If anybody had sought to dishonestly politicize the death of William Buckley, that would have been analogous to the incidents you refer to.
The analogies you attempt to draw only further illustrate my point of what little respect so-called “Liberals” show for their own dead.
The manner in which these so-called “Liberals” deliberately, disgustingly and dishonestly politicized the deaths of their loved ones was a page take directly from the undeniably Marxist doctrine of “Political Correctness”. They all sought to set themselves up as morally unassailable such that they could spew their dishonest propaganda without any challenge from their political opposition.
DISGUSTING! And, sadly, very typical.
sbvor:
Well at least we resolved that respect for the dead and grieving is relative and not absolute.
The limits of your comprehension continue to amaze.
You must have taken early retirement because, surely, you can't be old and be that dumb.
Art,
What “we” have established is that:
1) Far too many so-called “Liberals” have no respect for the dead among their political opposition.
2) Certain so-called “Liberals” have no respect for their own dead.
More generally, it can be said that far too many so-called “Liberals” have no respect for much of anything (least of all themselves, much less the sanctity of life).
One thing I do agree with sbvor about is that Heller was correctly decided.
Liberals need to do two things: embrace Scalia's language that the Second Amendment was designed as a bulwark against tyranny in the event of a "breakdown in the constitutional order"; and second, start stockpiling guns so we can defend ourselves from the right-wing, militant Christian zealots that dominate the Republican party.
Despite what Jesus taught, they'll show no quarter. They'd rather hoot and hollar about "saving" insentient clumps of embryonic cells than give a damn about our Air Force wiping out Iraqi wedding parties based on scraps of "intelligence."
Brooklyn,
You may want to review the objective and substantiated facts as found here and here.
For the record sbvor, I'm totally opposed to late-term and partial-birth abortions, but EEG activity isn't even faintly measurable until the 12th week.
Absent a literal belief in the Bible (which, incidentally, very very few Christian literalists read in the Ancient Greek it which the Gospels were originally written; they prefer, or are only capable of, reading translations of translations of the originals -- which is insane for literalists claiming to hang on every word) -- which is itself a sign of ignorance, given that the Bible is only one great book among many -- there's no reason to classify early-term abortions as anything other than the removal of insentient clumps of cells. But once the CNS is up and running, I'm opposed to ending the life.
But I'm also all for Spain's recent enactment of rights for apes. After all, there are many primates out there that are far more intelligent than many humans out there (like the mentally retarded, infants, President Bush).
The big mystery to me is why pro-lifers don't call themselves "pro-human-lifers," because that's all they are. I'd sacrifice a thousand-year-old tree for just about any Republican any day of the week.
I should add that I am in favor for allowing any procedure necessary to save the life of the mother.
Oh no, big mistake: I'd sacrifice just about any Republican for any thousand-year-old tree any day of the week!
Brooklyn,
The question of when human life begins must, by definition, involve a transformational event.
The only transformational event in the entire process is conception. Conception is when two haploids merge to form a diploid.
It is intuitively obvious that the moment (conception) when that diploid is created is when a new human life is created. Every event thereafter is a transitional event (as opposed to a transformational event).
Also, conception is an utterly unambiguous event. Any other attempt to define the moment when human life begins is both ambiguous and relative to each pregnancy. In short, it is nothing but a political contrivance invented for the sole purpose of legitimizing and legalizing the cold blooded murder of the most helpless and most vulnerable of our citizens.
Worse still, contrary to the usual propaganda, in the overwhelming majority of these murders, the homicide is perpetrated for nothing other than a simple matter of convenience. More horrifically, that perception of convenience may well mask a far darker political agenda.
This culture of murder for convenience defines our society, both qualitatively and quantitatively, as among the most barbarous ever. In my view, the general decline of our culture is directly traceable to the callous disregard we show to these, the most helpless and most vulnerable, of our citizens.
The morality of abortion aside, the reason why Roe v. Wade must and will eventually be overturned is a simple matter of Constitutional Law. Any reasonable person can read this dissenting opinion from the day and understand what I mean. I quote:
“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand.”
Once Roe v. Wade is overturned, we will have restored the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of “the people and the legislatures of the 50 States” to decide these matters.
For my part, I would vote to craft the laws in accordance with existing laws concerning homicide. There are, where any human product of conception is concerned, cases where homicide is “justifiable”. Reasonable persons can, and will, disagree on what constitutes “justifiable” (just as they do in other examples of homicide). It will be up to their duly elected legislatures to sort that out (and, from time to time, if necessary, resort it).
WARNING!
If you do not find the abortion video on this page disturbing, then you have been stripped of every last milligram of your humanity (perhaps, by design)!
If you do not want to be disturbed, DON’T WATCH IT!
I agree with you that too many people go into things with abortion in the back of their minds as a potential future 'out' if they're unlucky enough to get pregnant when they don't want to. Abortion as a matter of convenience when you could've taken the easy steps up front is inexcusable. And overall, such recklessness does erode our morality -- but no more (and I would argue far less) than does cheering on a war, especially one lacking any nobility whatsoever.
But I disagree that conception is the only transformational moment. I think going from no sentience to sentience -- when the cortex boots up towards the end of the first trimester -- is the key event. It's only at that point that you can make the argument that there's even the potential for sensing pain, in any common sense of the term, which is the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. By the same token, I eat shellfish, which lack central nervous systems, but I don't eat fish, which do have them, albeit simple ones. Haploids-to-diploid can't hold a candle to the birth of the mind -- any mind.
But then again, this doesn't explain all of my beliefs. Thousand-year-old trees don't have nervous systems at all (at least as far as science is concerned), but I still think there's something "mindful" about them, and about forests.
Neuroscience's best guess is that consciousness is the result of a mass of nerve cells (each one profoundly complex) coming together in such intricate ways that at some point a threshold of complexity is crossed. In the same way I think ecosystems, made up of complex beings, become so complex themselves that something higher emerges. Actually I think societies are the same way: hundreds of millions of people interacting with each other via the internet and sophisticated markets seems a lot like hundreds of millions of neurons interacting in the brain. Maybe at some point a meta-being will wake up (if she hasn't already), get some sense, and set about purging herself of the many cancers that plague her
As for Jesus, he was a cool dude with loads of wisdom about how to treat each other. But he's largely been ignored, even by those screaming his name the loudest. Plus, as I mentioned in an earlier comment, that's just one good book among many
brooklyn said...
"I would have so much more respect for conservatives if they weren't ashamed of that FACT. I mean, c'mon, own it!"
Forgive me if i missed it somewhere in these postings but let's not forget the many horrific crimes perpetrated by dems; Dresden carpet bombing, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Vietnam carpet bombing to name a few. The gop has nothing on the dems with respect to genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Just for completeness I should add that many neuroscientists don't believe in consciousness at all. They can't get beyond talking only about cells firing. In that way I think they have a lot to learn from religion.
Well if we go way back the GOP was the party of Lincoln, but that has nothing to do with how modern Republicans relate to black people -- or rather, don't relate to them
I'm talking the GOP of my lifetime and of now
Brooklyn,
Judging by your pain based argument, I presume that if I first rendered you incapable of feeling pain, you would deem it morally and legally acceptable for me to murder you in any manner I chose (not that I care to do so).
Fine…
Once we restore the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of American voters (by overturning Roe v. Wade) you and I can both argue our points to our duly elected representatives in our respective states and enact the laws which the voters and their duly elected legislators deem appropriate given the knowledge base available at the time.
(See my prior comments on Roe v. Wade).
Oh I agree with your federalism argument 100%. I gave money to Ron Paul in the primary because I'd like to see the federal government stripped way down and give rights back to the states, not only with respect to abortion, but drugs, school-content, religion, and even guns (though it looks like Heller laid the groundwork for a future case to hold the Second Amendment applies to the states too). I think if Kansas were to outlaw teaching evolution, fine. The net result is that there would be far fewer productive scientists coming out of Kansas. This relates to the already growing disparity between red-state and blue-state economic competitiveness in the modern world (which also relates to the significantly larger blue-state share of the federal tax burden, that subsidizes underperforming red states). Kansas would be making itself even more dependent on other, more educated, technologically advanced, and productive parts of the country, and the coasts might eventually buck at having to pull more than their fair share of the weight. (Although to be fair, red states do pump out most of our soldiers)
As for you taking away my ability to feel pain: you're also taking away my ability to feel anything at all, which should be my vested right. My problem with the early-term fetuses is that their rights haven't vested yet; they're incapable of feeling, period. But it's an interesting point. I've dug myself in a hole now because I'm not 100% sure I don't believe in a soul -- but I'm confident insentient clumps of embryonic cells don't have them yet.
And actually there are a lot of people who would welcome being able to have someone else take away their pain, even if it means dying. That should be up to the states too
just a random comment, mr. reich, if you read the comments on your blog -- i am SO glad you are writing your blog. i have come to rely on it for clear and courageous explanations of crucial issues on which i lack the background to think productively on my own. thank you.
Brooklyn,
According to your pain-centric definition of when human life begins, anybody suffering this disorder is not a human being, never has been and can be murdered at will without moral concerns or legal consequence.
Face it! Life begins at conception and conception is when every human being is “vested”, in this country, with their right to “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
Interesting essay from the web site PrudentBear.com. Is the US heading for financial meltdown:
http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/BearsLairHome
Hm, and, men, abortion? Let me give you insight from the ethics class i took as part of my health sciences background:
If you don't like abortion, then don't have one. If you're a male, then don't waste time. You will never need an abortion. If you are related or in a relationship with a female, the female can have an abortion, and you will never need to know, given doctor-patient confidentiality. How many times do you get the information about the results of a woman's annual physical? Never, given doctor-patient confidentiality. Keep your focus on your own genito-urinary health and give your regards to your urologist.
kayxyz,
Thank you ever so much for the radical feminist perspective on why women should have the right to murder at will for no better reason than personal convenience.
(And, people wonder why I feel like I need a shower after visiting this site.)
As a skinny kid in the early Sixties, I was confused about whether breaking through the Red Rover line at recess would be a victory for Kruschev, Castro, or the Friendship Seven astronauts.
P.S.) According to this source:
“1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).”
sbvor:
(And, people wonder why I feel like I need a shower after visiting this site.)
Gracious! You must look like a prune by now.
I feel your pain. I, too, get so disgusted with this site.
Why don't we make a pact to never ever enter here again? You go first.
kayxyz:
Here! Here! On your abortion statements.
Concluded long ago that it is a woman's decision. If she is religious then she has to work it out with her God, between the two of them. If she's not religious then she'll know one day whether she should have been and whether she will pay for her decision.
In either case, there are limits to man's ability to make sound judgments, sometimes even for himself, most assuredly as regards his fellowpersons.
I am not a religious person but the Bible contains some wisdom: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".
In short, I have no correct answers for this dilemma so I must let God decide and until He decides I must let the woman affected make her own decisions.
As The Recession Turns:
And then there was a RUN on the IndyMac Bank today. Those who deposited more than the FDIC covered $100K lost it.
Step by step we head to that dark & stormy night.
Rumor has it that WaMu might be next.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=5373554&page=1
tt
OH, but who to blame for these financial events that have been apparent to everyone for years?
Who to blame?
A Democrat, of course. But who?
Schumer. Chuck Schumer of NY for a report on already public info, of course.
Everyone looks for a scape goat for events that have been unraveling for years.
The usual, pathetic scenario.
tt
TipToe,
Banks were in much worse shape in 1991.
My gracious! How DID we EVER survive!
Oh, and the MUCH larger overall economy is still growing.
I got a music video for ya’ girl!
Art,
One need not be religious to understand that murder is wrong and that the cold blooded murder (just in the United States) of 49 MILLION of the very most innocent, helpless and vulnerable of our citizens is utterly intolerable.
This is, by far, the single greatest shame ever heaped upon our nation. It amounts to more than EIGHT TIMES the Nazi Holocaust!
We did it to the very most innocent of our own citizens.
We did it, almost exclusively, for nothing more than convenience.
And, our Supreme Court (WITHOUT the approval of either “we the people” OR our elected officials) said, in absolute defiance of our Constitution, it was legal to do so!
SHAMEFUL! But, sadly, not at all surprising.
Sometimes I wonder who is crazier, the irrational, hopelessly unreasonable person making a ridiculous argument, or those who repeatedly waste precious time trying to reason with the person. What do they say? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
SBVOR has his own blog which he has linked to more times than there are stars in the universe; why not continue the senseless bantering over there and continue whichever argument he sucks you in to, and leave this blog for a discussion of the topic which Dr. Reich has so graciously started.
I'm sure Dr. Reich doesn't read, or need to read, the same junk that's on a gazillion other blogs. Can this one be different?
Toast:
Love ya guy but you can be a pragmatic bore at times. ;)
sbvor:
Not surprisingly again, you wrap yourself around simplicity.
Abortion is a complex issue for which there are varying degrees of disagreement with reasonable justifications all around.
Probably the strongest arguments against are embodied in religious dogma.
I don't have an answer. I, like all of us, would prefer fewer abortions. I would prefer that they only were only done out of necessity. But I do not have to carry a fetus for nine months and I do not have to be responsible for caring for and raising a child, especially one that the law forced a mother to have.
In your vehemence how many children have you adopted?
As a hairy-palmed, shoeless, republican with projecting forehead, no offense taken... but if you offer to pass the bong around, you'd better make good, buster! :-)
cheap wow power leveling buy wow power leveling cheapest wow gold CHEAP power leveling BUY wow gold CHEAPEST wow powerleveling WANGGONGwow goldwow goldffxi gilwow gold
Post a Comment
<< Home