The (Very) Cool Hall of Fame #148


President-elect of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama

33 comments:

Vanwall said...

The coolest of the cool, now.

Robert Fiore said...

As so often happens, there's a scene from a movie that captures the essence of the moment:

"Are we awake?"

"That depends. Are we . . . black?"

"Yes, we are."

"Then we're awake."

Cinebeats said...

Cheers!

swac said...

... and the free world breathes a sigh of relief.

Peter Nellhaus said...

That won!

Tom Sutpen said...

Ha!

Maybe it's me, but I don't get why the entire mainstream media, almost as one, rhapsodized over how 'gracious' John McCain's concession speech was last evening. The words were gracious, perhaps, but his delivery had all the conviction of a statement read out on a hostage tape. I could easily envision him slamming his fist into several walls (and aides) as each red state fell . . . or should I say 'ascended' . . . to Obama. He did not look resigned to his fate.

tristan said...

i heard the news in the works canteen when i arrived at 0420 and found a dozen assorted and excited black men, west indians, africans, frenchmen, londoners, watching mc cain's surrender speech

one turned to me and said, your brother has lost

i said, he's not my brother ... i'm a democrat

Tom Sutpen said...

Well put.

I would never be so foolish (or presumptuous) as to say that Obama's victory ushers us meaningfully into some Post-Racism epoch, as some have suggested. But if you compare the wild and joyful diversity of that crowd in Grant Park last night, with the 99.999% White, xenophobic and crypto-racist gatherings McCain and Palin have been playing to, both last night and throughout the campaign; you look at the polling data which suggests that younger voters, by great margins, simply don't see racial differences as something of earth-shattering import in their lives, and I can only look upon this election as a sign of real, definable progress for this oft-benighted country.

Fred said...

Tom, I have to disagree with you on this one. McCain always looks like he's uncomfortable when he speaks (like he's got a bad case of gas), but I think he was sincere in his concession speech, just as I think President-elect Obama was sincere in his victory speech. I voted for McCain, but I hope and pray that you are correct in your support for Obama, and I wish him all the success as President. After two straight failed administrations (Clinton's characterized by scandal, W's by gross incompetence), this nation can ill afford another one. Let's put partisanship aside and now work together.

Jeremy Richey said...

Agreed...I am so thrilled and happy today.

Jessica R. said...

I know better than to expect to be led into the Promised Land but what I liked so much about his acceptance speech was that he acknowledged that too. There's much work to be done. And I agree about the diffrence in the crowds what was most heartening about this being a landslide was that it felt for a while that the ugliness and hatred you saw at Palin/McCain rallies was the majority. But what makes this election so important is that it wasn't, we said no to the worst parts of our national character and chose to honor the best.

Timmy said...

You are duped. In much the same way the Germans were duped by a very strong orator almost a hundred years ago. This is not HOSANNA OBAMA, this is but another deceitful, vengeful, lying, drunk who will deal his way to the detriment of all that swallow his pompous baloney. OK, don't believe me, just watch as we go wee-wee-wee all the way home.

Tom Sutpen said...

Fred:

Your point is well stated; and I suppose it's a measure of the man (albeit a tiny one) that McCain was privately highly reluctant to move into the high-test slime mode his campaign eventually personified (if what 'Newsweek' is reporting is true, he was largely following Sarah Palin's lead in this respect). But God, did the man have to embrace it so?

On your other point, I certainly wouldn't say that anyone who voted for McCain yesterday was some half-sane, unreconstructed neanderthal and low-intensity Fascist. There were, I've no doubt, large numbers of fundamentally Conservative (in the best sense of that term) people who see Obama as simply wrong on issues that matter to them . . . though I might argue that those voters went with McCain in spite of the campaign he ran, probably not because of it.

That kind of principled, non-divisive partisanship is, I think, something we need more of. The kind you're talking about (people who essentially won't rest until there's another Civil War in this country) is what everybody, I agree, can do without.

Jessica:

I too started to believe that those racist lowlifes who turned out for the McCain and Palin rallies represented a formidable segment of the electorate. The revelation that they are not was one of the high points of the night for this viewer.

Tom Sutpen said...

Timmy:

Drunk????

On a more comprehensible point, what is it that you envision President Obama doing that's so horrible . . . and what is your basis for envisioning it?

I mean, only in a political spectrum so narrow and so skewed to the right as this one could someone like Obama be branded a leftist without everyone collapsing in a mirthful heap. This is what I've been saying for the last month: If anyone thinks he's a Socialist, then they have no idea, none, what Socialism really is.

Tom Sutpen said...

Signor Fiore:

Come to think of it, that bit of dialogue does have an odd and charming resonance today.

Fred said...

Tom, funny thing is that I'm not a Republican or Conservative, but a registered Democrat (I discovered that yesterday when I went to vote and remembered that I switched from Independent to Democrat as a personal protest during the risible Starr Report) who considers himself a moderate, leaning to the left on social issues. My support for McCain stems from my belief that he would make an excellent Commander in Chief of our armed forces (unlike the Chicken Hawks who dominated W's administration, McCain personally understands that war is hell), a strong advocate for individual rights (he has taken courageous stands on torture and campaign finance reform) and a supporter of small business (which makes up about 99% of my clientelle). I think he is the most honorable man in the Republican Party, and one of the most honorable in our nation. And I truly believe he will try to work with President Obama to help this nation through its current crises. As for President Elect Obama, I was concerned about his lack of a straight answer on his past associations with radicals (I believe they were for political expediency, but I would have felt greater comfort if he admitted this), consider raising taxes in a recession the wrong policy to pursue, was not convinced that Obama is fully committed to our alliance with Israel (as a Jew, this is a matter of extreme importance to me, although I am very happy with his choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff), and was troubled by Obama's lack of experience. Nevertheless, I am willing to put my concerns aside, accept the results of the election, give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and hope he is successful as our president. I really hope he meant what he said last night of bipartisanship (something which too many presidents from both parties have promised but then broken), and will work with all sides to make this nation and world a better place, and undo the damage of the last two decades of mismanagement.

Tommy O'C said...

“I mean, only in a political spectrum so narrow and so skewed to the right as this one could someone like Obama be branded a leftist without everyone collapsing in a mirthful heap. This is what I've been saying for the last month: If anyone thinks he's a Socialist, then they have no idea, none, what Socialism really is.”

Tom,

“Mirthful heap”?

Now Obama isn’t even to the left of center? His voting record in the Senate is as liberal as Ted Kennedy’s. Or it was until he decided he wanted to be president. Next, you’ll be saying that Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, and Reid are not “leftists.”

You’re the one who has no idea what socialism is, my friend. Try this:
“Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.”

Team Obama has called for a redistribution of the wealth. That’s socialistic. It sure ain’t from Adam Smith.

Also, you said to one poster: “I certainly wouldn't say that anyone who voted for McCain yesterday was some half-sane, unreconstructed neanderthal and low-intensity Fascist,” and then to another you speak of “those racist lowlifes who turned out for the McCain and Palin rallies.”

Pray tell, how are we to tell them apart?

Tom Sutpen said...

Now Obama isn’t even to the left of center?

*****
No, he's marginally left-of-center (the real center; not the center as it has been determined by Fox News). My idea of a leftist is someone like Noam Chomsky. I would not call Barack Obama a leftist by that standard.

His voting record in the Senate is as liberal as Ted Kennedy’s. Or it was until he decided he wanted to be president. Next, you’ll be saying that Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, and Reid are not “leftists.”

*****
You must be psychic, because that's exactly what I was going to say next.

Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein and Reid are not leftists; they are liberals. This is precisely my point about the spectrum being skewed hopelessly to the right. If you listen to Talk Radio (and I'm not suggesting this is where you get it from), you'll very often hear people like Sen. Edward Kennedy referred to, casually and without thought, as 'extreme leftists'. Sen. Kennedy is not from the extreme left, nor are any of the foregoing. They're mainstream liberals with the same baseline interests, class and otherwise, as their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. The big, cosmetic difference is that Liberals believe the interests of social justice can be served within this economic system. But ultimately that system is where their true allegiance resides (if the last two months hasn't demonstrated that . . . in Technicolor . . . it has demonstrated nothing). They're not out to dismantle or even fundamentally restructure anything.

The only genuine leftists in Congress are Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I would have added Cynthia McKinney, but she ain't there no mo'); and if the Democratic party were as fire-breathing and radical-left as the right would have us believe, their voices would not be nearly so marginalized.

You’re the one who has no idea what socialism is, my friend. Try this:

“Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.”


*****
Who are you quoting there?

To my mind, Socialism boils down to this: The people who work in the factories should own them.

Period.

More broadly stated, people should have a direct handle on their own economic and social destinies.

Team Obama has called for a redistribution of the wealth. That’s socialistic. It sure ain’t from Adam Smith.

*****
That's true, but neither is the current system that calls itself Capitalism and shamelessly uses Adam Smith as an avatar (unless you think Adam Smith would have been a-okay with such things as state subsidizing of private industry).

Please show me where President-elect Obama has actually advocated wealth redistribution (I only wish he would). And if you cite what I think you're gonna cite, then . . . you've gotta stop reading The Drudge Report.

Also, you said to one poster: “I certainly wouldn't say that anyone who voted for McCain yesterday was some half-sane, unreconstructed neanderthal and low-intensity Fascist,” and then to another you speak of “those racist lowlifes who turned out for the McCain and Palin rallies.”

Pray tell, how are we to tell them apart?


*****
Well, I was taking it as a matter of faith, more than anything, that those bloodthirsty creeps were representative of nothing more than a large and vocal minority of those who supported John McCain this year. If you want to say people like the guy waving around a stuffed monkey with an Obama sticker plastered to it, or that old bag who spoke, in a voice reflecting real terror, of Obama being "an Arab" (because there is no more frightening or pernicious thing on this earth than that) were emblematic of McCain voters, then go ahead. I don't agree that they were.

SomeNYGuy said...

Poor Timmy and Tommy;
Go run home to Mommy!

swac said...

Now I've got Phil Ochs' Love Me I'm a Liberal stuck in my head.

Tom Sutpen said...

Same here!

joel. said...

that was a thrilling exchange of comments - well done tom. i hope timmy (and the like) kept an open mind while reading and learned something.

Fred said...

It's a shame the level of discourse in this country can't rise to the level just exhibited on this thread. We can have our disagreements, but keep them civil and focused on the issue, not ad hominem attacks.

Kevin said...

Tommy--

By your definition, anyone who isn't for a flat tax is a "socialist." That would include a parade of Republicans from Teddy Roosevelt (champion of progressive taxation) to John McCain himself. It would also include anyone who supports the big bailouts. (Or is socialism for the rich not really socialism?)
It was revealing to see so much of the McCain camp's rhetoric degenerate into mere name-calling (starting with "celebrity"), because the GOP used to pride itself on being a party of ideas.
It's become a party of labels--as in the description of enemies as "facists" by people like Jonah Goldberg, who seem to be projecting their own inner demons.
This country has been yanked way to the right for eight years. I'm all for some sensible steps leftward, starting with the return of taxation to Clinton-era rates.
By the way, I LOVE this site.

Riley said...

I always pick the Irish name in elections: O'Bama.

Gloria said...

Tom Sutpen: "This is what I've been saying for the last month: If anyone thinks he's a Socialist, then they have no idea, none, what Socialism really is"

Tom, I'm similarly shocked at some demonization. I live in a country where the office is currently held by a Socialist party, just as a few years ago it was run by conservatives. And... it's not the end of the world, and, no, I have not seen any of them Socialists eating raw babies. In fact, if you ask me, I rather find the socialists of my country on the conservative side ;p

And here all people can go to schools and have a bed in a public hospital... It's just, those who prefer to pay it, they have also expensive private school and a private luxury hospitals. But then those who cannot overexpense (most of the people working for a salary) at least have a more-than-basic. service.

Julie said...

Obama is the best.

Tommy O'C said...

Poor Timmy and Tommy;
Go run home to Mommy!
-----------------------

Hey, somenyguy

My mother died two years ago. I live in NYC, too, and I suggest you leave her out of this or have the balls to tell me this to my face.

Tommy O'C said...

No, he's marginally left-of-center (the real center; not the center as it has been determined by Fox News). My idea of a leftist is someone like Noam Chomsky. I would not call Barack Obama a leftist by that standard.

Noam Chomsky? I wasn’t aware anyone even took him seriously anymore.

That’s YOUR idea of a leftist. You clearly are out of touch with MSNBC and the wealth of critical commentary from BOTH right and left that have discussed THAT station’s leftward and leftist emphasis, which is in lock-step conformity with the views of Obama, et al. (e.g., Olbermann, Maddow). To be to the left is to be a leftist. To be so far to the left that you’re in sync with Marx is to be a Marxist. Stop parsing words.

“In contemporary Western political discourse, the Left is most often used to describe forms of socialism, communism and social liberalism. Marxist thinker Leszek Kolakowski has defined the concept of the left in abstract terms as being utopian and ideological.[2]. Center left is a term used to describe a political position that is close to the center of the political mainstream in a particular country.”

All of the political pundits on CNN and MSNBC (and they are quite a few of them and most of them are politically left of center) still agree that the U.S. is still a center-right nation. The “San-Francisco-style” voting records of Ted Kennedy, Obama, Pelosi, etc. are still very far to the left. (Kucinich isn’t a Leftist; he’s an f’ing JOKE, even in his own party.) Just because they haven’t called for nationalizing the means of production does not change their leftist biases.

--------------------------------------------

To my mind, Socialism boils down to this: The people who work in the factories should own them.

“From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs.” The abolition of private property. Everything is owned by the collective, not just the means of production. That’s Marxism. Socialism is just a watered-down, more palatable version of that. I really think you should read up on this stuff unless you get your news from Pravda.

*****
Please show me where President-elect Obama has actually advocated wealth redistribution (I only wish he would). And if you cite what I think you're gonna cite, then . . . you've gotta stop reading The Drudge Report.

Add up all that he’s promised to do and ask yourself where the money for this is coming from, since he’s pledged to cut middle class taxes. Gail Collins in the NY Times (Talk Radio and the Drudge Report, my ass!) is hardly to the right and she has said that the young people in this country are in for a HUGE surprise when Obama will not be able to deliver on most of what he’s promised

CNBC reported: Poll: Voters Against Obama 'Wealth Redistribution' Plan

Gee, someone must be doing the math on all his promises…

*****
”If you want to say people like the guy waving around a stuffed monkey with an Obama sticker plastered to it, or that old bag who spoke, in a voice reflecting real terror, of Obama being "an Arab" (because there is no more frightening or pernicious thing on this earth than that) were emblematic of McCain voters, then go ahead. I don't agree that they were.”

I never did say that they were. YOU did, in your first post, when you referred to the “99.999% White, xenophobic and crypto-racist gatherings McCain and Palin have been playing to…”

99.999% is not a minority. You made a very extreme statement that you have since backed away from.
-------------------------------------------

Gloria,

That’s why Europe has a 1% growth rate, because of it’s socialized cradle-to-grave everything. How many weeks of vacation do they get in France, for instance? Eight weeks? Not including national holidays.

Tommy O'C said...

Kevin said...
Tommy--
By your definition, anyone who isn't for a flat tax is a "socialist."

Kevin,
I don't think you quite grasp the implications of the "flat tax." Yes, I am aware of its support among the GOP.

The flat tax was actually advocated by that ultra-socialist, Ronald Reagan. Per Business Week, date 1/16/1996:

"Republicans are about to revive the pro-growth optimism that was a hallmark of party idol Ronald Reagan...."

But it was opposed by "Democrats committed to preserving tax progressivity and curbing corporate welfare vs. Republicans bent on applying a one-size-fits-all rate to all paychecks, whether earned by a secretary or a corporate tycoon."

The main problem with passage of the flat tax? It's impact on the middle class:

"But easing that double burden, as GOP flat-tax or sales-tax plans propose, will give big breaks to savers and investors at the expense of wage-earners. Politically, that's a tough sell. The middle-class whammy could be doubled if the flat tax eliminates all itemized deductions."

The problem with the flat tax is the burden it would place on the middle class. Opposing the flat tax is not synonymous with socialism.

As for the likes of Jonah Goldberg "projecting their inner demons," I read the Bill Ayers' autobio when it came out. Any party that harbors an individual who still says (and it's in the book) that he believes the Weather Underground didn't bomb enough clearly has its own "inner demons" to deal with. For Christ sake, the man never even said, I'm sorry, we were wrong, we hurt innocent people. So don't preach to me about fascists because there are plenty of fascists on the left.

Tom Sutpen has two photos posted--one of the Twin Towers burning and the other of a woman in Middle Eastern attire next to a bombed building. When a fan of this site said, please tell me you see a difference between these two photos, he said, of course he sees a difference. And used the analogy of a man stabbed 55 times (I believe) vs. a man stabbed 5 times.

This kind of moral relativism is typical of the ultra-left. (This is a man who's professed not to see the blatant racism in the Black Panther "comic books." Had a book with that type of message been written by whites and directed at blacks, oh, boy, would the self-annointed one have been beside himself.)

Also, Tom had a hissy fit because he didn't think McCain's concession was truly gracious, that McCain didn't seemed "resigned to his fate," whatever that is supposed to mean. And then asked if it was him or was the media caving in to McCain on this one?

Would that be the same media that has openly shilled for Obama since Hillary dropped out? And don't tell me otherwise. Chris Matthews has openly said he believes it's his "duty" to do all he can to support Barack Obama openly on his show. That's not journalism or anything close to it. That's outright advocacy. Try reading the NY Times. Even the Times has written articles about the blatantly left-wing bias (and squabbling) on CNN and, especially, MSNBC.

So, no, the media were accurately reporting what was a remarkably gracious concession speech by McCain, a man more gracious in defeat than many of Obama's more immature supporters could ever be in victory.

Tom Sutpen said...

Tommy-O

Noam Chomsky? I wasn’t aware anyone even took him seriously anymore.

*****
I do. The thousands upon thousands who read his books and turn out to hear his talks (he's perpetually booked up 3 years in advance) all over the globe do.

That’s YOUR idea of a leftist. You clearly are out of touch with MSNBC and the wealth of critical commentary from BOTH right and left that have discussed THAT station’s leftward and leftist emphasis, which is in lock-step conformity with the views of Obama, et al. (e.g., Olbermann, Maddow).

*****
But we were talking about my idea of a leftist; specifically, my contention that President-elect Obama is at most marginally left of center. It matters not to this reporter that MSNBC has embraced a more openly liberal tone in its prime-time schedule, or that anyone over there may think Obama represents the high-end of radical possibility in America. In terms of the political spectrum our mainstream media feeds us, Obama may be far to the left. But that spectrum is an instrument of propaganda (the unspoken assumption being that you can go no farther to the left than this; which is nonsense), and I don't have to take it seriously.

To be to the left is to be a leftist. To be so far to the left that you’re in sync with Marx is to be a Marxist. Stop parsing words.

*****
No, to be an advocate for the ideas and/or writings of Karl Marx makes one a Marxist. You really have to be precise about this. All Marx did was articulate and elaborate upon ideas that had long preceded him in the minds and hearts of people all over the industrialized world; people who never heard, and would never hear, of either him or the technocrats in Russia who perverted his ideas.

“In contemporary Western political discourse, the Left is most often used to describe forms of socialism, communism and social liberalism. Marxist thinker Leszek Kolakowski has defined the concept of the left in abstract terms as being utopian and ideological.[2]. Center left is a term used to describe a political position that is close to the center of the political mainstream in a particular country.”

*****
Who the hell are you quoting??

Holy cats . . . (thank you Google) . . . you're getting this stuff from the Wikipedia???

All of the political pundits on CNN and MSNBC (and they are quite a few of them and most of them are politically left of center) still agree that the U.S. is still a center-right nation. The “San-Francisco-style” voting records of Ted Kennedy, Obama, Pelosi, etc. are still very far to the left. (Kucinich isn’t a Leftist; he’s an f’ing JOKE, even in his own party.) Just because they haven’t called for nationalizing the means of production does not change their leftist biases.

*****
Everything you're saying is true, and every characterization you make is accurate . . . IF . . . the true range of political ideas and discourse in this country was reflected in what you see on commercial television. Again, it does not. You're painting your portrait from a (very) narrowly-cast palette. In the real world, you can go farther to the left than Ted Kennedy. Very easily.

“From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs.” The abolition of private property. Everything is owned by the collective, not just the means of production. That’s Marxism. Socialism is just a watered-down, more palatable version of that. I really think you should read up on this stuff unless you get your news from Pravda.

*****
You know you're in trouble when your bon mots have liver spots on them.

The idea that people should control their own lives and destinies, and not be subject to the compulsion of anyone for their existence (essentially that the worth of a human not be measured by their usefulness to the purpose of producing other people's wealth) predates Marx. I daresay it predates all recorded thought. It is innate in humans, and it takes a lot . . . a LOT . . . of indoctrination to wipe those impulses out of us.

Add up all that he’s promised to do and ask yourself where the money for this is coming from, since he’s pledged to cut middle class taxes. Gail Collins in the NY Times (Talk Radio and the Drudge Report, my ass!) is hardly to the right and she has said that the young people in this country are in for a HUGE surprise when Obama will not be able to deliver on most of what he’s promised

CNBC reported: Poll: Voters Against Obama 'Wealth Redistribution' Plan

Gee, someone must be doing the math on all his promises...


*****
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to believe that something is bad (or good . . . or anything) because The New York Times and CNBC say it is. They have their own interests, after all, and they're not going to rush out and advocate anything that might conflict with that. Which is fine. That's their bidness. I'll just keep it in mind whenever I get information from them.

”If you want to say people like the guy waving around a stuffed monkey with an Obama sticker plastered to it, or that old bag who spoke, in a voice reflecting real terror, of Obama being "an Arab" (because there is no more frightening or pernicious thing on this earth than that) were emblematic of McCain voters, then go ahead. I don't agree that they were.”

I never did say that they were. YOU did, in your first post, when you referred to the “99.999% White, xenophobic and crypto-racist gatherings McCain and Palin have been playing to…”

99.999% is not a minority. You made a very extreme statement that you have since backed away from.


******
No, you simply aren't reading me carefully. I was talking about 99.999% of the slugs who turned up at those rallies (not counting the schoolkids the campaign had to bus in during the final ten days . . . forced busing?!?! . . . to make the crowds appear sizable). If they were the only people who voted for him, McCain would have ended up with at best 5% of the vote. I was assuming that 99.999% were a minority (albeit a measurable and vocal one) of a larger, and on the whole more decent body of support, however much I may disagree with their choice.

That’s why Europe has a 1% growth rate, because of it’s socialized cradle-to-grave everything. How many weeks of vacation do they get in France, for instance? Eight weeks? Not including national holidays.

*****
Scratch that. You know you're in trouble . . . or are at least in the grip of Stockholm Syndrome . . . when you've so absorbed the values of economic elites that you can actually deride (with a straight face) other countries when they don't treat their citizens like an army of soulless piston rods.

As for the likes of Jonah Goldberg "projecting their inner demons," I read the Bill Ayers' autobio when it came out. Any party that harbors an individual who still says (and it's in the book) that he believes the Weather Underground didn't bomb enough clearly has its own "inner demons" to deal with. For Christ sake, the man never even said, I'm sorry, we were wrong, we hurt innocent people. So don't preach to me about fascists because there are plenty of fascists on the left.

*****
Bill Ayres and that wife of his . . . and the rest'a them Panther-wannabe whiteboys of the long ago . . . were a buncha creeps. And it's got nothing to do with their principles. They were too busy with their half-witted game of Cowboys 'n' Indians to see the damage they were doing. The late Fred Hampton said it best: "We believe that the Weatherman action is anarchistic, opportunistic, individualistic, chauvinistic; it's Custeristic. And that's the bad part about it. It's Custeristic in that its leaders take people into situations where people can be massacred. And they call that a revolution. It's nothing but child's play. We think these people may be sincere but they are misguided, they're muddle heads and they're scatter brains."

And that's a fack, Jack.

Tom Sutpen has two photos posted--one of the Twin Towers burning and the other of a woman in Middle Eastern attire next to a bombed building. When a fan of this site said, please tell me you see a difference between these two photos, he said, of course he sees a difference. And used the analogy of a man stabbed 55 times (I believe) vs. a man stabbed 5 times.

*****
Hey, that's neat. I completely forgot I wrote that. When was it posted; do you recall?

This kind of moral relativism is typical of the ultra-left. (This is a man who's professed not to see the blatant racism in the Black Panther "comic books." Had a book with that type of message been written by whites and directed at blacks, oh, boy, would the self-annointed one have been beside himself.)

*****
But . . . it was written by whites (the FBI) and directed at Blacks, as part of the Bureau's COINTELPRO campaign to demonize that organization by making it appear more unhinged than it actually was.

Also . . . for the sake of accuracy . . . it was a Coloring Book.

Besides, it's not moral relativism to look at an atrocity committed against the United States in the context of atrocities committed by the United States. Both are atrocious; neither are committed for a good reason.

And what is this 'self-anointed' jazz? Do you realize that not a day goes by (and I am not kidding here) when I don't think about how much I absolutely loathe myself? Why do you think I overreact at the slightest criticism, here and elsewhere? I don't need the additional scorn; I can handle that myself.

Also, Tom had a hissy fit because he didn't think McCain's concession was truly gracious, that McCain didn't seemed "resigned to his fate," whatever that is supposed to mean. And then asked if it was him or was the media caving in to McCain on this one?

*****
Be still, ya big bully. That was a quick observation on my part. I'm perfectly willing to believe I was reading too much into that grimly-set jaw and slightly monotone delivery (he had, as someone already pointed out, given more than one speech this year with the same apparent lack of conviction).

Would that be the same media that has openly shilled for Obama since Hillary dropped out? And don't tell me otherwise. Chris Matthews has openly said he believes it's his "duty" to do all he can to support Barack Obama openly on his show. That's not journalism or anything close to it. That's outright advocacy.

I say, I say . . . well-told it is, son. But whoever said that bloviating fool Chris Matthews is a journalist? He is (or was . . . I don't know if he's still doing it) an op-ed page columnist; someone paid to give their opinion. I have no trouble with any network (even Fox) building their programming around opinion; even opinion freighted in a specific direction. It is (again) the very narrow range of opinion and ideas we get on commercial television that bothers this reporter.

So, no, the media were accurately reporting what was a remarkably gracious concession speech by McCain, a man more gracious in defeat than many of Obama's more immature supporters could ever be in victory.

*****
What are you referring to here (I mean, specifically)?

SomeNYGuy said...

Can't we send this obvious teenage closet-case escapee from the circular firing squad of the right-wing blogosphere to a more appropriate site?

Gee, tommy o'c, no one has threatened to beat me up since 7th grade. I'm honored (and grateful for the laugh.)

Mediocre Times said...

Obama had my vote until I was jerked around by several of his key Senate staff members. But I am merely a lowly constituent, so what the fuck do I know.