Finally! The DNC grows some balls.

The BBQ Pit
161

Thanks. If Kayla is your daughter as your screen name implies, she’s lucky.

I fear I don’t find a lot to laugh at while watching the Democratic Party gradually give away our best opportunity in years, and then adopt the tactics of the Republicans to try to stop the slide … ha ha ha.

While the DNC is beating their chest and proclaiming that the Republicans are only 20% of the voters (not true, but let’s ignore that), here’s the TV ratings for the political commentators:

TIME, FOX News, Rating, MSNBC, Rating, CNN, Rating, HLN, Rating
5:00 PM, Beck, 762, Matthews, 166, Blitzer, 193, Prime, 145
6:00 PM, Baier, 446, EdShow, 187, Blitzer, 249, Prime, 199
7:00 PM, Shep, 418, Matthews, 271, Dobbs, 241, Issues, 286
8:00 PM, O’Reilly, 757, Olbermann, 276, Brown, 337, Grace, 347
9:00 PM, Hannity, 691, Maddow, 279, King, 378, Issues, 297
10:00 PM, Greta, 623, Olbermann, 258, Cooper, 343, Grace, 234
11:00 PM, O’Reilly, 597, Maddow, 199, Cooper, 226, Showbiz, 167

SOURCE

Olbermann and Maddow are getting creamed. Even Nancy Grace beats Olbermann in the 8 PM slot.

Now, it’s tempting to think that it’s all a bunch of brain-dead retired folks, but these are ratings for the 25 to 54 year old demographic … funny, but I find it hard to laugh about those numbers.

162

The obvious explanation is that while there are more democrats than republicans, the proportion of republicans who watch Fox News is WAY higher than the proportion of democrats who watch any particular news show… or maybe even than who watch any show at all.

163

Except during pledge week.

164

Well I could, but I didn’t want you to accuse me of plagiarizing you.

165

Oh, most excellent. Seriously, that was good, I busted out laughing.

Well played.

166

Thanks, MaxTheVool. I suspect that you are right, which does not lessen my concern. There have been far too many Democratic mis-steps and mis-judgements of late, including the one we are discussing. These energize the Republican base.

This whole episode has not been to Obama’s overall advantage. Those who think he deserves and should accept a Nobel Peace Prize for his “vision” couldn’t possibly support him more than they already do. That’s approaching the upper limit of adulation, you can’t admire someone much more than when you give him prizes for his amazing “vision” … so simple math indicates that this is a net loss for him. The downside far outweighs the upside.

The Republicans realize this, of course, so they are riding it for all it is worth. It makes for great sound-bites, so Glenn Beck and his ilk benefit from it. And the DNC has played right directly into the Republican hands, thanks, guys. Brilliant. We need an updated, 21st century Godwin’s Law regarding comparing your opponents to terrorists …

I suppose that some day I should listen to Beck and to Rush and to Greta, I’ve never watched or heard any of them so I don’t really understand their attraction. Their words in print have been so over-the-top that I’ve had no desire to actually hear them, I’m afraid that my brain might asplode … I listened once to a couple minutes of Nancy Grace, it left me feeling queasy for a day, haven’t tried that again since.

167

That’s what rejecting the prize would look like to many in the world.

Why did you cut him off in mid-sentence? Why didn’t you continue on with the quote:

168

You know this how? I think you are trying to say that’s how it would look to you.

You may or may not be too young to recall, but Le Duc Tho turned down the 1973 Peace Prize, saying that he couldn’t accept it because there was no Peace in Vietnam. I sure don’t recall one single commentator saying that he was throwing the prize in the face of the Nobel Committee. But perhaps your memory is better than mine, or perhaps you have a citation for your claim. Until then, I’d say you’re projecting your own prejudices on the whole planet.

Because you and I weren’t discussing the rest of the quote. You asked why I said Obama agreed he didn’t deserve it. I quoted the part of his entire speech that discussed whether he deserved it or not. What, you wanted me to quote the whole speech? It didn’t change the meaning of the sentence I quoted. He said he didn’t deserve it, but he would accept it as “a call to action”. Can’t be much clearer than that. He doesn’t deserve it, and he knows it.

If you truly want me to discuss the rest of the quote, I’d say he went on to invent specious reasons to accept a prize he knows he doesn’t deserve. You know, like the claim that “this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.”

Riiiight … the purpose of the Nobel Prize is to encourage people to give life to the promise of the American Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I’m sure that’s a real comfort to Europeans and Chinese and Africans. I’m sure that all the Nobel Prize winners want a world built on American documents … riiight.

Talk about parochial bullshit, that takes the cake, that Nobel Peace Prize winners want the world to be like America. More to the point, it is pathetic for a President who is ramping up the war in Afghanistan and increasing drone attacks in Pakistan and advising Holder not to prosecute torture and continuing the Bush Administration’s spying ways and not closing Guantanamo to make that claim. Nobody (including you) wants to touch those facts. You just want to get all starry eyed about our Fearless Leader’s “vision”, and ignore what he is actually doing and what he hasn’t done.

But I guess it makes perfect sense on your planet, where it seems you don’t think about it at all, you just go “Obama said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

OK, I’ve discussed the rest of the quote. Happy now?

169

So, your solution would be for the Democrats to cease making aggressive and insulting remarks about people who disagree with them? Duly noted.

170

I’m saying your posts are low grade ore. Anyway, thanks for reposting the link.

I dunno: “Preceding year” sounds a lot like “Over the past year”. I see no reason to believe that it would apply to calendar year 2008. Heck, it could be dated August-August or even October-October for all I know.

That said, this year’s award wasn’t especially helpful in my view. But echoing John Mace: Get yur own award!

171

He did not say he didn’t feel he deserved the Nobel. He said that he felt he didn’t deserve to be in the company of so many people who he admired, and that he felt the Nobel was not awarded on the basis of his accomplishments, but that the Nobel Peace Prize has in the past had been awarded for being on the right path to peace and that this award was granted in the same spirit.

I think you’re misreading what he is saying. The purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize is to encourage the creation of peace, which is the same goal as the committee, and of Americans, and was the desire of our founding fathers.

There we go with the mind-reading again. Let’s start the touching at the bottom.

The Guantanamo prison can only be shut down once we determine an appropriate place to move the prisoners and setting up the logistical apparatus to safely transport them. There’s a lot of inertia involved and everyone in the current and previous administration have been saying for a while that it’s not a simple process. Still, Obama’s administration is still moving forward in the process and still have the end of the year as the goal for the jail shutdown, even though they’re saying that it will be tight.

Continuing Bush’s spying ways – I’m not familiar with any plan to continue using warrantless wiretaps. The Department of Justice has asked for some lawsuits regarding warrantless wiretaps to be dismissed because they say there are state secrets that would need to be revealed in the discovery phase of the trial, which they say would cause harm to national security. They also say that there are also some constitutional issues regarding legal interactions between the executive and judicial branches of government – there might be some unintended harmful side effects from the precedent if this lawsuit moved forward. Now, I’m no lawyer, so I don’t know the merit of these arguments, but I’m fine with the executive branch putting such arguments up against those of the EFF’s lawyers and letting a judge decide. But, again, all that I have seen or heard from the administration is that they have shut down the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program.

As far as advising Holder to not initiate prosecutions of those implementing the previous administration’s “enhanced interrogation” techniques, i.e., what many people feel is torture, I disagree with him on this point. But I can understand the viewpoint that these people were given legal arguments as to why these techniques would not actually be illegal under US law, and that proceeding might cause chilling effects on future actions by soldiers, having to second-guess legal advice handed to them by government lawyers without themselves having the benefit of 8-plus years of study of US law. I’m hopeful that the lawyers who actually issued those legal opinions are brought to task, and I haven’t heard him come out against investigating legal actions against that set of people.

Finally, regarding the military action in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, I think it’s pretty clear that the Taliban, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, have little regard for human rights and little desire for peaceful relations with moderate governments. They also have military-grade weaponry and the skill and desire to use them to further their goals. And throughout his campaign, Obama made it quite clear that he felt the war in Afghanistan was justified and that he intended to reduce our military forces in Iraq precisely because he felt we needed a stronger presence in Afghanistan to finish the job.

My planet is Earth. Wish you were here.

The answer is left as an exercise for the reader to determine.

172

“Sounds a lot like”?? Man, I love folks that, no matter what something actually says, it doesn’t actually mean that, it means something that it “sounds a lot like” … and off we go through the Looking Glass …

*“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean. Neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”*

I just hope you are keeping up with the wage laws regarding overtime, because as Lewis Carroll wrote:

*“When I make a word do a lot of work like that, said Humpty Dumpty, I always pay it extra.” *

Or we could take the bozo route and assume that the previous year does not mean this year, it means the year previous to this year … no, that would be far too easy.

But no matter what year you pick, 2008 or the 12 months preceding the close of nominations in February … what has Obama done? I’ve pointed out that he doesn’t think he deserves the award, so why do you think he does?

One thing this thread has shown me clearly, however. The right wing’s characterization of the left, that many people think Obama is The Perfect One, the Obamessiah, is far too close to reality for my comfort. I thought it was an exaggeration, foolish me. Nobel Peace Prize because Obama has visions? Sure, no problem.

Guantanamo is a perfect example of the difference between “vision” and reality. Yes, Obama has a vision of closing Guantanamo, which is a fine thing … but that is cold comfort to those who are still imprisoned there tonight as I write these words, those who are sleeping or staring into the dark cell tonight as y’all cheer and celebrate Obama’s Peace Prize. I doubt whether those men take much solace in Obama’s “vision” or his Peace Prize. From my own experience, the cold steel of jail cell bars doesn’t give a shit about someone’s “vision”. When I was inside, I had lots of “visions” of being out again … but I was still inside.

It is that rude reality, the ugliness of the real world’s limitations and threats and challenges, that the other nominees have conquered, and for which they truly deserve the Peace Prize.

Having a vision of climbing a mountain is one thing. Climbing the mountain, as Obama has discovered in Guantanamo, is much, much harder. That’s why Sir Edmund Hillary and Tensing Norgay are famous. Because they were the first to actually climb Everest. Yes, I do believe that Obama will eventually close Guantanamo, and that someday his vision will finally triumph over the steel bars. And when he does, I will celebrate and laud him for his accomplishment.

But until then? I’ll pass, thanks, I’ll leave the premature cheering to you folks.

173

[QUOTE=intention;11669324One thing this thread has shown me clearly, however. The right wing’s characterization of the left, that many people think Obama is The Perfect One, the Obamessiah, is far too close to reality for my comfort. I thought it was an exaggeration, foolish me. Nobel Peace Prize because Obama has visions? Sure, no problem.[/quote]
Sorry. I’m a hockey fan. The only chosen one is Sidney Crosby, and Evgeni Malkin is his prophet.

Understandable, cause closing down a prison is such an easy thing to do. Just throw open the gates and let 'em out. You don’t have to go home but ya can’t stay here.

And again we find ourselves basking in the presence of your awesome mind reading powers. Any who disagrees with you is cheering the award, thinks you’re allied with the terrorists, and believes that Obama is the perfect human (which is just silly because everyone knows the perfect human is Nick Lidstrom).

Limitations like closing a prison instantly or just up’n ending a war on the spot.

I’d rather Obama not climb a mountain. I think he’s got more important things to do.

There are exercises you can do to help if you’re a premature cheerer.

174

Too true, too true …

Who said closing Guantanamo would be easy? Of course it won’t be. Having the vision of closing Guantanamo is easy. Actually doing it is quite hard. So we agree about that … but it seems you are missing the point. Generally, prizes are awarded for doing the hard stuff, not the easy stuff. When Obama does the hard stuff, he may deserve the prize. What is this, one of those demented American grade schools where you can’t give one kid a prize unless you give everyone a prize, because it might be bad for their self-esteem if someone wins and they don’t? (People in other countries might think I’m kidding … I assure you, I’m not.)

And again we find ourselves basking in the presence of your awesomely poor reading skills. I never said anyone who disagrees with me thinks I’m allied with terrorists. That would be the DNC, which is hardly “everyone”. I never said everyone thinks Obama is perfect. I said that “many people” have shown here that they are disturbingly close to the Republican allegations that they see him as The Perfect One. I never said everyone is cheering prematurely. That would be you and some others on this thread, which again is hardly “everyone”.

This may come as a shock to you, but I don’t actually think Obama should climb a mountain. That would be poor comprehension on your part. It’s called an “example”, something which is given for illustrative purposes in order to assist someone in understanding … oh, never mind, I take it back. You can continue to believe I said Obama should climb a mountain. I know when I’m beaten, some mountains are just too hard to climb. And I’d rather that neither I nor Obama climb a mountain, so I agree with you, it’s all OK, nothing to see here folks, move along …

And yes, I know that (as you point out) real world limitations mean that hard things take time to accomplish. I know that Obama can’t end a war right now, or close Guantanamo overnight, or do any one of a number of difficult real-world things immediately on the spot, like win a Nobel Peace Prize, or … oh, wait …

I would be more encouraged, however, if he were winding the war in Afghanistan down rather than gearing it up, and reducing Bush’s government spying rather than extending it, and prosecuting past torture rather than ignoring it. And before you say it, yes, those are hard things to accomplish too … that’s why historically we have given prizes for doing them rather than for having a “vision” about doing them.

175

Did Le Duc Tho have an entire political party intent on casting everything he said into the worst light possible?

176

Well, I finally figured it out. It’s just a modern version of a Nasruddin story.

The Sufis say that one day Nasruddin came into a bathhouse. Since he was dressed in shabby clothes and obviously poor, the bath attendant ignored him, was surly, and gave him an old dirty towel. When Nasruddin left, he gave the attendant a gold coin for a tip.

Amazed at this huge tip for such poor service, the attendant thought “Nasruddin must secretly be a wealthy man. I should treat him much better, then he’ll give me a really big tip.”

Accordingly, the next time Nasruddin came into the bathhouse, the attendant gave him the royal service — massage, manicure, the finest towels, nothing was too good for him. But when Nasruddin left, he only gave the man the smallest copper coin as a tip.

The attendant could not contain his astonishment. “Why such a small tip? Didn’t you like the service this time?”, he demanded.

“Oh, that was for the service last time,” Nasruddin replied. “You’ve already gotten the tip for the service this time.”

Obama, on the other hand, reminds me of another Nasruddin story. Seems Nasruddin wanted to learn to play the flute. He asked the flute teacher how much the lessons were.

“Twenty dollars for the first lesson,” the teacher said, “and five dollars per lesson after that.”

“Excellent,” said Nasruddin, “but I already know a lot about the flute, so I’d like to start with the second lesson.” …

177

No, he was just the representative of the country that had been fighting the world’s richest nation for a decade, so he had absolutely no opposition at all, everyone in the US thought he was wonderful …

It’s definitely taking longer than we thought.

178

That’s funny, this also reminds me of a Nasruddin tale. A traveler approaches a river. The current is fast, the river deep, and there are no bridges or ferries in sight. On the far bank of the river, he sees Mullah Nasruddin. “Excuse me!” he calls, “How do I get to the other side of this river?”

Mullah Nasruddin looks quizzically at the traveler, and shouts back, “You ARE on the other side of the river!”

179

So you’re saying that he didn’t do a “terrorist fist bump” with his wife on national TV? He didn’t harbor “anti-white” sentiments? He didn’t attend a church led by a “racist” preacher who hated whitey? He didn’t want to institute “death panels”?

The Anti-Liberal Squad will denounce ANYTHING Obama does. Le Duc Tho’s situation was pretty damn different from what Obama’s having to deal with.

180

Illustrates my point perfectly. You are all about Holy Joe, how you refrain from lying and spin, then you pull crap like this with a straight face. Someone emphasizes that Obama has the admirable quality of “vision”, and you twist it to hallucination.

You’re on our side? If we have bake sale and raise enough money for a bribe, will you consider switching?