The NYT's David Brooks explains Barack Obama's position on Hezbollah:
[Obama says] the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites "to peel support away from Hezbollah" and encourage the local populace to "view them as an oppressive force." The U.S. should "find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services."Let me paraphrase:
You go into these small towns in Lebanon and, like a lot of small towns in the Mideast, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Siniora administration, and the Hariri administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 16, 2008 04:28 PM | Email ThisAnd it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them ... as a way to explain their frustrations.
Obama seems to see everything through material eyes, not spiritual, not values. In some cases, it seems when countries move from being dirt poor to having some newfound wealth, some citizens take advantage of the new found wealth to spread a gospel of hate. In other words, they get richer, then fund more violence. I do not advocate keeping people poor in order to reduce the chances of violence. I do think any discussion of root causes of violence involves looking at more than just material factors. Life is complex.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on May 16, 2008 04:25 PMThe law of unintended consequences meets up with hoisted on one's own petard here.
If you say one - can you deny that it is not applicable to the other? And if so is it fact that the unwashed masses are the force driving society?
So are we saying the author is pointing out the fallacy in the reasoning in the candidate for POTUS or is he saying that class transcends borders and the lower classes are nutso?
The fly in the ointment is the disconnect between the intellectual class in the two cases. In America the candidate was pointing out that the unwashed masses are rogue, they don't submit to the zeitgeist. I submit for your consideration that the power structure feeds the mass hysteria in the second. I would also submit that there is a difference in kind in the two groups submitted by the author as exemplary. I cannot put my finger on exactly how they differ, yet, but it will came to me.
But what has been made clear is that the left defers to the stated wants of the masses as a legitimate cause for grievance in one case and finds the other incapable of knowing what is right.
Posted by: JDH on May 16, 2008 05:57 PMIs it any wonder I am cynical?
Posted by: JDH on May 16, 2008 06:14 PMFor the benefit of us that are new to your lecture class, could you tell us what the "designs" of the MSM are?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 16, 2008 06:24 PMWould David Broder be considered part of the MSM?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 16, 2008 06:55 PMNot interested thanks!
Posted by: GS on May 16, 2008 07:39 PMGuatama Buddha - "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
Give up your Marxism, your Facism your full of it mouth and find your true path, your englightenment :)
Posted by: barackslawyer on May 16, 2008 07:59 PMAre you aware that if you keep calling people "stupid M'F-r", someone is going to knock your teeth down your throat?
I have no other questions.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 16, 2008 08:21 PMOf course Obama thinks in material terms. Obama has no spiritual values. Look at his pastor for the last 20 years.
Posted by: zDawg on May 16, 2008 08:37 PMIn this case, I am dubious about his explanation on how he would deal with the middle East. I would like to hear a debate about this issue between he and Sen. McCain and then let the chips fall where they may. There are alot of grey areas in this election and if Obama wants to paint McCain as black and white, he will find out how mistaken he is. McCain has done this to Obama only when the opportunity presents itself. One also wonders why he was so quick to respond to Bush, when Bush did not even mention him by name - paranoia perhaps or he doth protest too much ?
Posted by: KS on May 16, 2008 09:58 PMBeen calling people Stupid M'Fr's a long damn time now and still sportin' the china the good Lord gave me.
Likta' try? Played a lotta f'n hockey and raced a lotta' G'damn motor cycles and got the scars to show for it.
You are a stupid M'F-r, I calls um as I sees um. I'm here any time ya' wana' try a piece of me.
Not only am I a lot smarter than you...
Posted by: JDH on May 16, 2008 10:14 PM
JDH, first you give a pretty descent evalutaion of how the "common man" is used in two different scenerio's, but then you go and detract from yourself by resorting to name calling towards someone that is merely questioning your thoughts. Perhaps that two could be a stark comparison as to how an "intellectual" will speak when he feels he is in the company of other liked minded people and how he digresses when he is challenged? Just a thought.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 16, 2008 10:41 PMObama obviously realized the "shoe fits" when the president made comments regarding the lunacy of negotiating with terrorists. Obama and his msm shills slammed the "damage control" and "attack" buttons simultaneously, realizing Obama had based much of his middle-eastern policy proposals on open negotiations with the Iranian government, Hamas, and other terrorist entities. To deny this confirms Obama as not only a "Jimmy Carter fool", but a bald-faced liar.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 17, 2008 06:52 AMIs simply an invitation to set off on an endless looping discussion regarding whether or not the MSM is ideologically aligned and whether or not they use their microphone to advance their ideology surreptitiously by inserting little snippets in here and whole essays disguised as news in there.
There is a documented pattern that includes no mention of Party when there is Democrat malfeasance to snide sniping at someone for misspelling Potato and then turning a blind eye to The Messiah of the 57 States.
If he can't figure it out then I am not going to be distracted by getting into a discussion of the obvious.
The left seeks to advance situational relevance and the case that there is no objective truth, that it is all perception and different people can have different truths for exactly this purpose.
I say if ya' want to go in that direction - get lost ya'..
Obama takes umbrage, because the truth hurts. The Left refuses to acknowledge any differences in the degree or hateful rhetoric, the situation in the Middle East, the extent of Nuclear Programs, the totality of the threats, etc. Everything gets reduced to the bromides of "peace talks" and negotiation.
And this is consistent with so much of left leaning philosophy. You know the same philosophy that seeks to rehabilitate rapists and serial killers. The same philosophy that thinks that one more homeless shelter will end the "war on homelessness." The same philosophy that would shut down the US economy for the sake of reducing carbon footprint.
If it looks like a Marxist and talks like a Marxist, it's a Marxist. End Progressivism. Expose Obama, his lies, appeasement, and association with radicals and terrorists.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 17, 2008 09:57 AM...and here I thought Dave Ross liked the sound of his own voice. It would appear he has competition.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 17, 2008 11:09 AMKennedy met with someone named Khrustiev? on what? ...a 'Simpson's' episode?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 17, 2008 11:14 AMI don't know what planet you've been living on, but 60 years of "peace talks" between Israel and the "Palistinians" have yielded nothing but concessions by Israel and increased terrorist attacks by the Syrian (and in later years Iranian)-backed "Palistinians".
So, what makes you think we can expect different from face-to-face U.S.-Iranian talks? Any freely-elected government that parlays with despots has earned the scorn of its citizens, as well as the rest of the world. Obama is an idiot in the mold of Jimmy Carter if he thinks he can gain anything negotiating with the likes of Ahmadinejad.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 17, 2008 02:36 PMIf only Republicans could manage to stop hating America. It's like McCain saying we'll be in Iraq for 100 years. He has no faith in our ability to win more quickly. Or Rumsfeld's, "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want." There is no higher tribute to the professionalism of our military than that he didn't get fragged then and there.
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr. on May 17, 2008 05:32 PMDo you actually believe there would be anything for Israel to gain in "negotiations" with the Arabs? The "Palistinians" and their Arab and Iranian backers are classic examples of the old adage that "it's easy to tell when they're lying because their lips are moving".
And for the second time, there was no "ugly and dishonest attack" on Senator Obama. If indeed Obama was the intended target of the president's statement, the senator has openly stated he would negotiate with Iran's Ahmadinejah, who actively supports terrorism in Iraq and israel, making him a terrorist.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 17, 2008 07:52 PMYour comments "Republican anti-American pansy-ism" and "Republicans could manage to stop hating America" belong on Saturday night live. And you need to put the bong down, junior.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 17, 2008 07:58 PMLaszlo Toth Jr's. more correctly quote has been revised to reflect reality, instead of his delusions with his drugs doing the talking.
"The progressive wing of the Democrat Party doesn't pay attention to the outcome for America, because we are America and they will automatically respect us, therefore one should be able to negotiate with anyone. They are naive in trusting anyone, as Jimmy Carter has demonstrated in previous negotiations with North Korea and more recently Hamas. McCain's position is just the opposite: America is strong, and we must be able to trust who we negotiate from strength and obtain peace through strength."
"Having to find a way" is what a policy is SUPPOSED to be!
Staying in Iraq is a policy. It's real. It's a decision about what to do in the physical universe. Saying that you understand all the problems that may result if you pull out of Iraq, and then saying, "yes, but we have to find a way" to deal with them is the abnegation of policy making!