Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:32 PM ET, 02/ 3/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* At least two dozen reporters have now been detained in Egypt, and gangs are hunting down others in what appears to be an overt intimidation campaign.

* White House advisers frustratedly acknowledge they can't dictate what's going to happen, and are worried that "if the army starts getting into internal security, the situation could deteriorate further."

* With a major demonstration set for tomorrow, Joe Klein predicts we'll know by then which way the army is going, for Mubarak or for the protestors.

* Mubarak says his son Gamal won't try to succeed him, and Obama administration officials see this as a significant concession.

* Strong stuff from Dem Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who pointedly asks Florida governor Rick Scott (who's threatening not to implement health reform) which of the law's consumer protections he's going to fail to enforce first.

* Do Republicans secretly want the health law to survive legal challenges, in order to drive up turnout among conservatives in 2012?

* Jeff Zeleny says the relative lack of debate about Egypt among GOP officials and 2012 hopefuls "underscores the relative absence of muscular Republican voices on foreign affairs."

I think the larger story there is that the voices of many of the Republicans who are most knowledgeable about foreign affairs have been entirely marginalized.

* Though, in fairness, it should also be pointed out that on Egypt, the GOP leadership is essentially supporting the President.

* House Republican leaders propose to slash more than $30 billion from the budget.

* But that's not nearly enough for the Tea Party brigade.

* Republicans ditch the "forcible rape" language.

* History lesson of the day: When White House chief of staff Bill Daley said "the whole world is watching" what happens to protestors in Egypt, he was borrowing a phrase that was used against his father, the Mayor of Chicago, when cops were fighting demonstrators at the 1968 Dem convention.

* Liberal groups go up with an interesting new spot in Wisconsin, tied to the Super Bowl, arguing that GOP Rep. Paul Ryan's vote for repeal of health reform goes contrary to the spirit of the Green Bay Packers.

* Surprise, surprise. A new poll (by a Dem firm) finds that in the wake of the Giffords shooting, a majority of Arizona residents wants more gun control. Didn't they get the memo about how more citizens packing heat would make everybody so much safer?

* And this is fun: David Axelrod, asked by Fox News what distinguishes the 2012 GOP field, responds: "All Fox News personalities."

Also key: Axelrod hails Mitt Romney as a "formidable governor" who came up with the ideas underpinning Obama's health reform law. So helpful of him!

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | February 3, 2011; 6:32 PM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security, Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, House GOPers, Tea Party, budget  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gibbs: Targeting of journalists in Egypt "totally unacceptable"
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

I'm sure this is not what Jon Huntsman expected:


"2012 Poll: Sorry, Jon Hunstman -- Utah Is Romney Country"

In Mormon-heavy Utah, one early poll shows that Romney has the edge. Though Huntsman held the state's highest elective office from 2005 until 2009, when President Obama tapped him to be Ambassador to China, the new poll shows voters there prefer Romney as their presidential nominee by 20 points.

The poll, conducted Jan. 15 by the University of Utah, has Romney leading Huntsman in a head-to-head Republican presidential nomination matchup by a margin of 48-28.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 3, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Link for the above comment.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/2012-poll-sorry-jon-hunstman----utah-is-romney-country.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 3, 2011 6:39 PM | Report abuse

"* And this is fun: David Axelrod, asked by Fox News what distinguishes the 2012 GOP field, responds: "All Fox News personalities.""

I asked this last night but you might have missed it. What is your opinion of your fellow WAPO employees appearing on FOX News? If invited, would you appear?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 3, 2011 6:41 PM | Report abuse

kindness1, do you feel that the 13th Amendment should be optional?

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Troll, do you think that's some kind of gotcha?

I don't particularly care if people want to go on Fox, though I can understand the argument against it. If I'm invited on I'll probably decline, mostly because I hate going on TV.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 3, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Greg, it's no more of a "gotcha" then WHAT WOULD CONSERVATIVES DO FOR HILLARY ST. PIERRE.

BTW: why haven't you banned caothien9?

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 6:49 PM | Report abuse

No gotcha to it Greg, though thanks for answering. Based on your comments, you seem to hold FOX News in low esteem, so I wondered what you thought of your coworkers appearing on a network you routinely deride.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 3, 2011 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"No gotcha to it Greg"

Yeah, Troll. Everyone is stupid but you. How in the world is that not a gotcha?

Except Scott, he's the Smartest Conservative In The World.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 3, 2011 7:07 PM | Report abuse


Greg Sargent

At this point, YOU should not be called a "skeptic" on Obama's religion. Perhaps you should be referred to ONLY AS A FICTION WRITER.

YOU are the one who has ZERO BASIS for making the statements which you do.

Instead of reasoning, you are pushing fiction.


_________________________


Greg writes today:

Obama to prove yet again to "skeptics" that he's Christian: The President is set to give what the White House calls a "deeply personal address" about his faith at today's National Prayer Breakfast, and no matter what he says, it won't do a thing to stop people from saying his public displays of faith have somehow been wanting.

Personal plea: Please let's stop calling these folks "skeptics," as if they've based their conclusions about Obama's faith on recognizably rational thought processes and can somehow be persuaded to change their minds.


__________________________


"recognizably rational thought processes"

Actually such statements are based on FACTS

Obama was raised a MUSLIM

Pure and simple, that is a fact.

Obama attended a HATE CHURCH guided by BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY

That, Greg Sargent, is NOT CHRISTIANITY.

OK - you can stop with your ridiculous, silly attacks on the right which have ZERO basis in fact,

AND you are trying to establish a standard of "recognizably rational thought processes"

HOWEVER, one must point out to you GREG SARGENT that you RARELY BASE ANYTHING IN YOUR COLUMN ON "recognizably rational thought processes."

ONLY A FOOL would continue on and on the way you do.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Re GOP response to Egypt...

FOX has a role to play - do anything/everything to de-legitimize Obama, Dems and liberals along with creating anger and fear - and are fulfilling that role. The rabble-rousers like Gingrich and Gaffney have the same role and, using FOX and other similar media, are fulfilling their role.

But the politicians whether in leadership or contemplating a presidential run, have a problem in that they are up before a broader audience and there is a freedom versus authoritarian dynamic increasingly evident so their criticism is constrained out of prudence.

But yeah, the old guard foreign policy people in the party have fallen out of power and out of view.

And Zeleny's point that the typical GOP criticisms on Dem foreign policy have little bite given Obama's own stance is also correct, I think.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Before signing off:

I want to once again wish everyone a Happy Chinese New Year, and pass along this tip to you:

Fill in the date on several blank checks, on the date line, with Year Of The Rabbit now; so that you will not mistakenly fill in Year Of The Tiger, when you make out the checks to mail them.

Good night all.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 3, 2011 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Bill O'Reilly is a scientific illiterate. Made fun of for his prior comments on the proof of the existence of a supreme being (the tides come in and go out) he responds in this video. The stupid quotient is not improved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Steve Benen makes a very smart point re Reagan-worship...

"It's silly to argue that Reagan's stature has gone down over the years; it clearly hasn't. But I'd argue his reputation has improved because Republicans have manufactured a p.r. campaign that has worked wonders. A lot of Reagan's fans claim to love the former president for reasons that bear no resemblance to the man's record, and those same fans seemed utterly shocked when confronted with details of his presidency -- such as his tax increases -- that they prefer to pretend didn't happen.

And why did the party bother? Because, oddly enough, Republicans have very few heroes to choose from. Think about it -- over the last 146 years, exactly how many GOP presidents do Republican activists actually like? There's Reagan, and there's no one else."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027835.php

The Reagan Lecacy Project (developed and run by Norquist) was astoundingly successful at creating a worshipful mythology surrounding Reagan, as Steve says. But I hadn't previously considered that aspect of the dearth of Republican presidential hero figures. It's a good point. But I'd temper it with consideration of Eisenhower who was widely regarded as that sort of heroic figure (being a General and Supreme Commander helped, of course) but Eisenhower falls far outside any model the modern conservative movement would celebrate or identify with. If there is a primary process anywhere in the country he would have a chance in, I don't know where that might be.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 7:40 PM | Report abuse

"Bill O'Reilly is a scientific illiterate. Made fun of for his prior comments on the proof of the existence of a supreme being (the tides come in and go out) he responds in this video. The stupid quotient is not improved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded"

bahahahaha, what is it that he thinks Mars doesn't have? A sun, a moon? Earth's moon?

Posted by: DDAWD | February 3, 2011 7:46 PM | Report abuse

And for only $50 a year, you can get MORE of his insight!! Hahahaha

Posted by: DDAWD | February 3, 2011 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Limbaugh before and after... from today's broadcast on the attacks on reporters in Egypt...

"LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, it is being breathlessly reported that the Egyptian army -- Snerdley, have you heard this? The Egyptian army is rounding up foreign journalists. I mean, even two New York Times reporters were detained. Now, this is supposed to make us feel what, exactly? How we supposed to feel? Are we supposed to feel outrage over it? I don't feel any outrage over it. Are we supposed to feel anger? I don't feel any anger over this. Do we feel happy? Well -- uh -- do we feel kind of going like, "neh-neh-neh-neh"? I'm sure that your emotions are running the gamut when you hear that two New York Times reporters have been detained along with other journalists in Egypt. Remember now, we're supporting the people who are doing this. "

Then, after a FOX reporter gets it...

"LIMBAUGH: Also, according to Mediaite, Fox News' Greg Palkot and crew have been severely beaten and are now hospitalized in Cairo. Now we were kidding before about The New York Times, of course. This kind of stuff is terrible. We wouldn't wish this kind of thing even on reporters. But it's -- it's serious. And you know, Anderson Cooper got beat upside the head 10 times when he was there. Still feeling it -- still feel sorry about -- reporters all think that the protestors ought to welcome them, they're on the same side."

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201102030018

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 7:50 PM | Report abuse

"If there is a primary process anywhere in the country [Eisenhower] would have a chance in, I don't know where that might be."

I think that's Benen's point as well, Bernie. Eisenhower might have been a bonified hero but not one today's Republican activists "actually like." It's another indication of how narrow in outlook that constituency has become.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 7:52 PM | Report abuse

@RainForestRising AKA sockpuppetcentral: That, Greg Sargent, is NOT CHRISTIANITY.

Who made you the arbiter of what is or isn't christian?

Is the pope a christian...not according to the baptists...

Are Koptics christians?

Jesus with all that feed the poor, heal the sick, clothe the naked stuff was a probably a liberation theologist too, I guess.


"Obama was raised a MUSLIM

Pure and simple, that is a fact."

Was he now...did he attend a mosque in Hawaii from 5th grade to high school or does being raised only count when he was living in Indonesia? Besides living in a nominally Muslim country, what is your proof that he is a Muslim? Do you have photos of him in mosques or are you deriving this from some other documented proof? Is it your contention that living in Italy automatically makes you a catholic? Does attending a catholic school make you catholic?

Posted by: srw3 | February 3, 2011 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Egypt is the big story tonight, as it should be, but I'd still like to pick up on a conversation from Monday's Happy Hour Roundup on the ratio of men to women writing informative and op/ed pieces (85% to 15%), Wikipedia contributions (13% women as indicated in this NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=1&ref=business) and, seemingly, posts on politics sites like the Plum Line.

Today's Slate has an interesting piece by Meghan O'Rourke http://www.slate.com/id/2283605/ on a report from VIDA, a women's literary organization, that shows how few women writers appear in magazines like the New York Review of Books, TNR, the Atlantic, and even small literary magazines. This includes not only bylines but whose books get reviewed. As O'Rourke points out, it's not that writing is a field that women are new to so that's not the reason for it. She considers various reasons for the disproportion including the idea that "bias works unconsciously on women and men."

As I said the other evening, it's been evident for a long time that men seriously outnumber women publishing in places like the New Yorker. But if they're also less evident in places like politics blogs where there's no editorial filter, women are making choices themselves about whether their voices should be heard on subjects of important general interest. Sue suggested in a comment that women may feel more welcome on a site with a woman poster on the front page, but the questions remain why women's voices are heard less, whether they should be heard more and, if so, how that can happen. Any more thoughts from anyone? And are there any women lurkers out there who would care to comment?

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

@All but certain,

It is so rare that anyone actually reads, I mean rebuts, Father Rainforest, our local resident theologian on matters of faith and world religions, that I had to read what Father had to say.

Per Rainforest: HOWEVER, one must point out to you GREG SARGENT that you RARELY BASE ANYTHING IN YOUR COLUMN ON "recognizably rational thought processes."

ONLY A FOOL would continue on and on the way you do.
----------------------------------------------------------
Most of us know that Greg Sargent is right on the edge of installing a new Comments software that will make it possible to ban individual posters. Insulting our gracious blog host at this point in time is, perhaps, an accident in unfortunate timing?

So, to quote the great Father Rainforest, only a fool would continue on and on the way he does.

Bwahahahaha!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Awwww. Laura Ingraham is mad at the Bush family. Even at W for referring to the movement as "nativist" (good for him, by the way, because that's exactly right)...

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/george-bush-says-tea-party-suffers-nati

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Obama and the liberals in the Senate are going to be INSISTING ON DRAGGING DOWN THE ECONOMY AND JOBS FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.


It is pretty simple. By hanging onto the massive taxes and expensive health insurance costs in Obama's plan, the democrats in the Senate are dragging down hiring.

So: IS IT MORAL to keep millions of people out of work, just to have an expensive health care bill that they think will help others?


HOWEVER, what about the millions who will be running out of unemployment benefits, and who will be running out of health care benefits?


THE IRONY is the truth: Obama's plan will ultimately result in MORE PEOPLE NOT HAVING HEALTH INSURANCE.

And the situation is even worse if one believes that Obama and the Senate democrats are CLINGING to a health care bill that will eventually get repealed or declared UnConstitutional.


IT IS IMMORAL TO KEEP OBAMA'S HEALTH PLAN IN PLACE.


These are the same democrats in the Senate who VOTED FOR the Iraq War, and then turned on the war when our troops were in the field, risking their lives.

These are the SAME democrats in the Senate, who on ONE DAY ASKED AMERICANS TO DIE IN IRAQ AND THEN TURNED THEIR BACKS ON THOSE MEN AFTER THEY HAD GIVEN THEIR LIVES -


All to gain a few points in the overnight polls.


These are the truly worthless scum of the Earth -

Thank you very much.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, All But Certain, it is srw the third who confronted Father Rainforest. Apologies to you both.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 8:14 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

You brought Cao to this blog, knowing full well what he would be like

There should be several complaints lodged against you for that alone.


AND for all the harassment of people you engage in.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Awwww. Laura Ingraham is mad at the Bush family. Even at W for referring to the movement as "nativist" (good for him, by the way, because that's exactly right).
--------------------------------------------------
If Ms. Ingraham would have the good sense to keep quiet, I suspect that many of those nativists would say "thanks, George, you're a great native too!".

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 8:20 PM | Report abuse

12Bar--no apology needed. I was puzzled for a second, thinking you might have thought I was criticizing Greg, our other host, but then I caught on. I think this site actually has a lot of theologians on it. Maybe they're working out of rehab at the same place?

Incidentally, though Cao is sometimes over the top and offensive in his more colorful language, his comments on the biology of gestational stages (at what point the blueprint develops into human life as we know it), seem a very legitimate part of the conversation on abortion.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Greg wrote,
"Strong stuff from Dem Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who pointedly asks Florida governor Rick Scott (who's threatening not to implement health reform) which of the law's consumer protections he's going to fail to enforce first.

"Do Republicans secretly want the health law to survive legal challenges, in order to drive up turnout among conservatives in 2012?
=========================================

Can any of our resident attorneys give us an idea of the chances the healthcare law may be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, like Bush vs. Gore. This is getting a little ridiculous. Businesses as well as individuals have to make the appropriate plans and decisions. We can't go on for two or three years with one court ruling the law unconstitutional while another court makes the opposite ruling. A lot of people are going to be disappointed one way or the other, but we really need a resolution sooner rather than later. Then Congress can get on to the business of either tweaking the existing law or starting over. This move for repeal is just political posturing. We need a Supreme Court ruling.


Posted by: Brigade | February 3, 2011 8:27 PM | Report abuse

@bernie:

Sounds like the Shorter Bill O'Reilly re: science would be:

"F***ing magnets, how do they work?"

Is it possible that O'Reilly is a Jigaloo?

Posted by: JennOfArk | February 3, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

My bad. I believe the correct term is "Juggalo".

Posted by: JennOfArk | February 3, 2011 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Incidentally, though Cao is sometimes over the top and offensive in his more colorful language, his comments on the biology of gestational stages (at what point the blueprint develops into human life as we know it), seem a very legitimate part of the conversation on abortion.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 8:27 PM
=========================================

Cao is already on record as supporting abortion right up to the final seconds before normal delivery. All the nonsense about eggs and sperm and blastulae is just a dodge. I'm not particularly interested in hearing about hangnails and whether or not the Catholic Church supports contraception. We should be able to reach a consensus that after a certain point in gestation, abortion becomes immoral. But pro-choice advocates always insist on a "health of the mother" exception than can be triggered with no more than supposed emotional distress.

I'm open to the "morning after pill" or abortion when the fetus is in fact no more than a small glob of cells. It's the abortions that occur after this stage that bother me. People who are pro-choice clear up to the moment of delivery should just stand up and be counted rather than hiding behind arguments about whether a sperm and an egg both represent human beings.

Posted by: Brigade | February 3, 2011 8:40 PM | Report abuse

srw3, read Dinish D'Souza's most recent book which cites to all of that evidence including the fact that Obama was listed as MUSLIM and attended a MUSLIM school in Indonesia.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives would do just what Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has done. Drastically cut the budget and then watch the people in need die. Republicans already have their Death Panels you see. And they've already killed some of their citizens.

Be proud repubs. Only 160 million more of us and you will rule the place.

Posted by: kindness1 | February 3, 2011 3:20 PM
======================================

These people just don't understand that government health decisions are government health decisions regardless of whether they're made by a Republican or a Democrat.
There is no point whatsoever to kindness1's remark.

Posted by: Brigade | February 3, 2011 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Brigade - were you aware that there are only about 90 late-term abortions performed in the United States per year, at least last year?

That would seem to indicate that the procedure is extremely rare and probably occurs almost all the time because of health concerns. The number 90, when compared to millions of live births per year and however many early-term abortions are performed per year kind of undercuts the idea that there are thousands, or even hundreds, of women flocking to avail themselves of late-term abortions.

Posted by: JennOfArk | February 3, 2011 8:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm open to the "morning after pill" or abortion when the fetus is in fact no more than a small glob of cells. It's the abortions that occur after this stage that bother me.
----------------------------------------------------
On this subject, brigade, you are as reasonable as a prolife person can be. Good for you for offering this.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

As a progressive, I believe there should be illnesses that are covered in full and those that are not. I don't think medicare should be paying for Cheney's heart transplant at his age and with his resources, for example. So I believe in rationing based on medical efficacy. What is the relative improvement in the quality of life and life expectancy after this treatment vs the cost.

Posted by: srw3 | February 3, 2011 3:29 PM
==========================================

Your "progressive" view is exactly what prompts people to talk of death panels. Treatment vs. cost? Rationing based on medical efficacy? Who will make these decisions?

And don't bother responding that insurance companies already have death panels, because that doesn't mean that the government won't eventually be making the very same kind of decisions.

Posted by: Brigade | February 3, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, it's not our fault if it takes longer to get to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, you say, "We should be able to reach a consensus that after a certain point in gestation, abortion becomes immoral." Let's take Cao's views out of this. I'm curious. Would you also say that up to that gestational point it's not immoral? These positions are both quite different from the usual reductive stances of pro-life and pro-choice.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence...you win, you are correct I have yet to answer Scott's question about
Conservatives having inconsistent morality.
Score one for you tonight Clawrence.

Let me be sure how to record this..
Clawrence 1
RUK 0

Is that about right clawrence? :-)

@Scott

As you can read above I have not come prepared to answer your question. Quite honestly I've been thinking about it all day. I wish I could say the dog ate my homework but I don't have a dog. You are the Conservative who most intrigues me. Yeah Q.B. and certainly Troll...I love you guys too...awwwwwww I used to feel that way about Tao, until I became consumed with jealousy because he is snowshoeing in the Adirondacks..OMG I'd rather do that than almost anything right now.

But Scott for whatever bizarre reason you do fascinate me...again perhaps because from my perspective you seem riven with cognitive dissonance. And I immediately apologize for even suggesting such a thing, which is pure arrogance on my part, mea culpa...only YOU know how YOU feel inside...I'm not trying to be snarky or disrespectful...it's simply how your posts add up to me. I readily concede that is MY problem and a reflection on me more than you...in fact it is not reflection on you at all...just an honest attempt at trying to figure why you would fascinate me out of all conservatives on this blog. I like several others...well here's the real deal about your answer...because you fascinate me, because I respect you (whether you believe it to be insincere or not :-) I don't wish to answer this evening because I read the prior health care thread and it left me feeling really really pissy. Again a reflection on me. Let me gather my cool. I wish to respond in a thoughtful manner and right now I'd simply answer in a very hot tempered Irish fashion and heaven forbid I might be tempted to call you a bad name. :-) I do not wish our conversation to descend to that level and so I'm putting myself in timeout. I'm sure you understand. I'll be back with a genuine answer when I get a grip.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

I responded this morning to your last to me on yesterday's Happy Hour, but I'm not sure you saw it, so I am bringing it forward.

""I don't remember what kind of argument you want to have.""

That is probably because I'm not looking for an argument. And I am not suggesting that you should preach to anyone. I just want to understand your thinking.

Specifically, I want to know if you believe in an objective, universal morality. Christian theology posits just that, so I have always assumed that you do. But when you say things like "my moral code is mine and it is private", it suggests to me that perhaps you do not.

However, maybe it is the case that you believe in an objective, universal morality, but that you cannot be entirely certain of its contents. Is that what you mean when you speak of your own "private" morality and when you say that "crime and punishment" is "for God", not you? That is, there does exist a universal standard of right and wrong, as adjudicated by God, and that your "private" morality is your own, perhaps imperfect, attempt to understand that standard. Is this accurate?

Again, despite your obvious suspicions, I am asking entirely in good faith. I am not trying to trap or trick you. For the record, what I suggest above, that there exists some objective, universal morality but that its contents are not entirely certain, is precisely what I think. I just don't attribute anything to God.

""So don't preach to me...""

Have I said something that you consider to be "preaching"?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 3, 2011 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Is Bill O'Reilly a lubricant?

I find it incomprehensible that the man is that uneducated in science. But actually it isn't just science, it's theology too. The second is more understandable but in either case, he's a complete bone-head as regards recognition of how little he knows or some over-weaning pathology that will not allow him to admit he doesn't know. Both, I'm sure.

But it won't be the first time I've noticed that individuals who use intimidation and bullying in conversation and who are this frightened of admitting absence of knowledge are themselves, at some level, quite acutely aware of their deficiencies. The behavior seeks to cover that up.

And then, one thinks of his audience. It's likely a good fit.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

I am not going to defend my moral code on a blog. It is too personal, too much a part of my heritage, my catholicism, my education and yes my own personal experiences.

Some people might think that debating morality is just like any other subject, like politics, but I think it's way too important and too personal to debate. I know what I am, who made me, what I believe, and what I have done because of what I believe. I'm not into debating it. Honest.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 8:59 PM | Report abuse

@scott,

Summary: to argue is to lose the meaning of the Way.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 9:02 PM | Report abuse

"As a progressive, I believe there should be illnesses that are covered in full and those that are not. I don't think medicare should be paying for Cheney's heart transplant at his age and with his resources, for example. So I believe in rationing based on medical efficacy. What is the relative improvement in the quality of life and life expectancy after this treatment vs the cost.

Posted by: srw3 | February 3, 2011 3:29 PM"

This should be put on a plaque as a perfect example/definition of "progressivism": We, the government, decide who receives medical treatment and who doesn't. We decide who lives and who dies, how and when. Rationing and death panels.

That's really the epitome of progressivism. It's chilling that you folks don't see it for the pernicious ideology it is.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 3, 2011 9:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm away but to Scott...

Can you think of an analogous phenomenon.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Would you also say that up to that gestational point it's not immoral? These positions are both quite different from the usual reductive stances of pro-life and pro-choice.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 8:49 PM
======================================

I can tolerate the process if it occurs early enough in gestation. But I don't speak for anyone but me. People can raise religious objections all the way back to contraception, but I think at an early enough stage abortion becomes a matter of faith between the individual and God and not something that should be prohibited by law. And I'm sure cao is sincere in believing that people who don't want children shouldn't be adding to the world's population; I just think that they need to act quickly if that's how they really feel. I won't bother saying where the line should be, but it's probably been crossed after the first trimester.

There is a difference in the view that any sort of interference is stepping on divine perogative and my concern that real babies are being murdered.

Jenn, I don't know how many late-term abortions are performed each year. I'll take your word for it, but I would caution that some of the late-term abortions are flagged as necessary for the health of the mother when in fact they are nothing more than matters of convenience. I have nothing but anecdotal evidence, but I do know this to be true in some cases.

Posted by: Brigade | February 3, 2011 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Maybe because I'm a football fan, maybe because the Pack are my second favorite team and my in laws are all cheeseheads...but I LOVED that Paul Ryan/Packers radio ad. IMO incredibly effective. Go Pack kick some Steeler behind.

@ABC

Picking up on your curiosity about the when/where and why women get published or posted on blogs. I don't wish to delve into the science of it all, or talk about the cultural effects on women/guys...cultural expectations...I understand this stuff vaguely but I'm no expert.

And so if I might engage you anecdotally.
I am a member of a weekly writers group.
We have perhaps 20 members but generally about a dozen show up at any given get together..equally divided between men and women. We all read five minutes of our work and then go around the table for a critique from everybody else. There is a marked difference in the subject selection of the men and women...what interests them...and to a lesser degree even style.
I can't explain this either..is it the old Men are from Mars and women from Venus...or is it the other way around? :-)

Sometimes a guy will read a political essay, the women..never. Most of us are reading from our novels...but one woman loves free verse, she is our only poet. Although as Liam has shown many times with lovely Irish poetry and verse that's not a male-female thing. In fact perhaps poetry is the closest thing to where men and women meet when it comes to writing.

But here's the most interesting part ABC
Our moderator, a young woman of about 40, is Canadian and a hockey fan...big time!

She is writing a story from a male first person perspective. I was blown away that she would even try. I thought how cool.
Yet I would be far too intimidated to ever try and write a story from a first person perspective as a woman. I realize I don't have a clue as to how you ladies think or feel...well I exaggerate..I've had some clues over my life :-) But that's about it, only some clues.

Sorry for this awful stream of consciousness answer but I am interested in the phenomenon you have documented.

And so ABC I close with a question for you.
Can you imagine what it might be like for you to write a story from a 1st person male perspective...all that testosterone coursing through your veins...would you be able to determine when you might say "Bring it on"...when you might be laid back. Perhaps we should all be forced to write stories from a perspective different than ours.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, as a person undergoing treatment for a more than serious illness and doing it with solid coverage, I have to say that one of the many things I think about is cost. You could call it one of the side effects I'm dealing with, realizing that at some point treatment will have little chance of doing anything truly useful, while having an emotional and physical cost and a financial cost to the society and pool of people who pick up the tab. So I think your questions about who decides what and when are real ones, but they're certainly not ones we should avoid discussing.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 9:09 PM | Report abuse

12bb, I think it's an understanding that there is an ambiguity to what you feel is morally correct. This is a permissable opinion, no matter what others may say. There are things you are absolutely sure about (Nazi extermination of Jews is wrong), things you are indifferent about (using a fork or chopsticks), and things you are unsure about (abortion). And by unsure in the sense that you feel strongly enough about it to abide by a certain set of rules, but enough uncertainty that you won't find someone abhorrent if she doesn't adhere to the same rules. This is different from something like Jew killing which you would find abhorrent by any practitioner because there is a much higher certainty as to its immorality.

At least this is how I think about it.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 3, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent

At this point, YOU should not be called a "skeptic" on Obama's religion. Perhaps you should be referred to ONLY AS A FICTION WRITER.

YOU are the one who has ZERO BASIS for making the statements which you do.

Instead of reasoning, you are pushing fiction.


_________________________


Greg writes today:

Obama to prove yet again to "skeptics" that he's Christian: The President is set to give what the White House calls a "deeply personal address" about his faith at today's National Prayer Breakfast, and no matter what he says, it won't do a thing to stop people from saying his public displays of faith have somehow been wanting.

Personal plea: Please let's stop calling these folks "skeptics," as if they've based their conclusions about Obama's faith on recognizably rational thought processes and can somehow be persuaded to change their minds.


__________________________


"recognizably rational thought processes"

Actually such statements are based on FACTS

Obama was raised a MUSLIM

Pure and simple, that is a fact.

Obama attended a HATE CHURCH guided by BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY

That, Greg Sargent, is NOT CHRISTIANITY.

OK - you can stop with your ridiculous, silly attacks on the right which have ZERO basis in fact,

AND you are trying to establish a standard of "recognizably rational thought processes"

HOWEVER, one must point out to you GREG SARGENT that you RARELY BASE ANYTHING IN YOUR COLUMN ON "recognizably rational thought processes."

ONLY A FOOL would continue on and on the way you do.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""I am not going to defend my moral code on a blog.""

You misunderstand. I am not asking you defend your moral code here or anywhere. I am not asking you to tell me if you think something is moral or immoral. I am not asking you anything at all about your personal moral code. I am also not asking you to debate anything.

I am simply and sincerely interested in whether or not you believe in the existence of an objective, universal morality. If you refuse to answer I won't ask again. But color me bewildered at such a refusal.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 3, 2011 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Is Bill O'Reilly a lubricant?

I find it incomprehensible that the man is that uneducated in science. But actually it isn't just science, it's theology too. The second is more understandable but in either case, he's a complete bone-head as regards recognition of how little he knows or some over-weaning pathology that will not allow him to admit he doesn't know. Both, I'm sure.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 3, 2011 8:54 PM
=========================================

I haven't seen the O'Reilly piece, and he doesn't need me to defend him anyway. I would say, however, that people of faith are apt to see the hand of God in the laws of nature, which permit and facilitate life, whereas atheists will regard the same laws as cosmic accidents---frequently introducing a myriad of imaginary alternate universes in order to reduce ours to the product of natural selection on a grand scale. Proof becomes in the eye of the beholder.

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." ROMANS 1:20 (NIV)

Posted by: Brigade | February 3, 2011 9:22 PM | Report abuse

The real work for a prolife person like myself is not the legal one. Abortions occurred commonly when abortion was illegal. If abortion was criminalized again, abortions would still occur. The real work is to work with teens so that they don't get pregnant, to work with pregnant moms to help them with real life answers to their problems so maybe they can have their baby. That work does not involve preaching or condemning or punishing moms, but to put my hands on the problems that these moms have to face. Not every mom is too young or too poor, but a lot of them are. That's the group where I can make a difference.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 9:23 PM | Report abuse

ruk--As a matter of fact I can imagine writing from the male point of view, though not necessarily first person, as I'm a fiction writer and my main characters are male as often as female. It's a requirement of the imaginative life to be able to go different places.

There. I'm outing myself all over the place tonight.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 9:23 PM | Report abuse

srw3

@RainForestRising AKA sockpuppetcentral: That, Greg Sargent, is NOT CHRISTIANITY.

Who made you the arbiter of what is or isn't christian?


___________________________


Srw3

WHO made you the arbiter of what is WHITE AND WHAT IS BLACK?

WHAT IS RED AND WHAT IS GREEN ???


One does not need an arbiter for what is plain and simple.


A HATE CHURCH that Obama chose to bring his children to is NOT CHRISTIAN.


I don't care what you say. If that Church was a White Supremacist Church, saying the exact same things, only switching the colors, YOU and all the LIBERALS would be up in arms over it.


There is NO DOUBLE STANDARDS ALLOWED.


Equal protection is equal protection

You are a fool.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 9:24 PM | Report abuse

"Can any of our resident attorneys give us an idea of the chances the healthcare law may be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, like Bush vs. Gore."

It can't be fast-tracked like Bush v Gore, which was appealed on an expedited basis from the Florida (i.e., state) Supreme Court and didn't go through an intermediate appellate court.

The Court does have the ability to take a case for review before a Court of Appeals has ruled on it, if it is of compelling public importance, but I don't know what the odds of that are here. I have not heard any discussion of that option, although I haven't been following it that closely. It's pretty rare.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 3, 2011 9:25 PM | Report abuse

"I am simply and sincerely interested in whether or not you believe in the existence of an objective, universal morality. If you refuse to answer I won't ask again. But color me bewildered at such a refusal."

You were baiting her into choosing between demonizing people who get abortions or allowing for the morality of slavery.

It bewilders you that she didn't want to go down this road?

And you're supposed to the SMARTEST Conservative?

Posted by: DDAWD | February 3, 2011 9:26 PM | Report abuse

@ddawd,

I'm not ambivalent about abortion. It's just that its legality isn't what I'm focused on. If it were illegal, there still would be many, many, many abortions. We need to focus on the problem, not the legality.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 9:27 PM | Report abuse


Apparently Obama and the liberals in the Senate are going to be INSISTING ON DRAGGING DOWN THE ECONOMY AND JOBS FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.


It is pretty simple. By hanging onto the massive taxes and expensive health insurance costs in Obama's plan, the democrats in the Senate are dragging down hiring.

So: IS IT MORAL to keep millions of people out of work, just to have an expensive health care bill that they think will help others?


HOWEVER, what about the millions who will be running out of unemployment benefits, and who will be running out of health care benefits?


THE IRONY is the truth: Obama's plan will ultimately result in MORE PEOPLE NOT HAVING HEALTH INSURANCE.

And the situation is even worse if one believes that Obama and the Senate democrats are CLINGING to a health care bill that will eventually get repealed or declared UnConstitutional.


IT IS IMMORAL TO KEEP OBAMA'S HEALTH PLAN IN PLACE.

________________

These are serious questions for the liberals.


Why keep a health care plan that is keeping millions of people out of work?

When that same health care plan is PREVENTING people from buying health care - and now will never be fully implemented?

Sorry guys, completely irresponsible and immoral to keep the health care plan.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 9:29 PM | Report abuse

If there ever was a time for being resolute and determined, now is that time for the pro-democracy Egyptians. If they quit the fight, it is over. God give them the mental and physical strength to hang together and hang tough, as the Mubarak police state begins their crackdown.

Posted by: dozas | February 3, 2011 9:32 PM | Report abuse

ABC, best of luck, whatever it is I hope you beat it. I wondered after the other night when you used the term "energy challenged". I'm mostly staying away tonight after reading the health care thread but wanted to give you my sincere best wishes.

Brigade, I think you would probably be amazed how many pro-choice people would agree with almost everything you have said. I've never believed in partial birth abortion but only very early stage as an option in certain circumstances. We're not all as far apart as we think sometimes. As medical science ensures the life of smaller and smaller preemies, I think the window of opportunity grows ever more narrow.

And the idea that families should have to file bankruptcy or divorce in order to qualify for life saving treatment was the most disappointing idea I've heard in awhile to solve the health care emergency we have in this country. Obviously we would all do so to save someone we loved. I faced that very decision less than three years ago and gladly jumped into that abyss, unfortunately we never had a chance. The idea that such a thing would be a viable solution to anyone astonishes me.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 3, 2011 9:34 PM | Report abuse

whether or not you believe in the existence of an objective, universal morality. If you refuse to answer I won't ask again. But color me bewildered at such a refusal.
----------------------------------------------------
Ok, Scott, since you've been persistent and polite, I'll tell you a little. First, I don't even know what the word "objective" could possibly mean in this context. As opposed to subjective? Universal? Yes.

I find arguing about religion or ethics to be extremely distasteful. It is very personal--perhaps the most personal thing about a person. To argue about one's own moral code is to expose those deepest convictions and beliefs to the scrutiny and judgment of another. Judgment is for God or perhaps for priests. Not for me.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 9:34 PM | Report abuse

IT IS IMMORAL TO KEEP OBAMA'S HEALTH PLAN IN PLACE.


These are the same democrats in the Senate who VOTED FOR the Iraq War, and then turned on the war when our troops were in the field, risking their lives.

These are the SAME democrats in the Senate, who on ONE DAY ASKED AMERICANS TO DIE IN IRAQ AND THEN TURNED THEIR BACKS ON THOSE MEN AFTER THEY HAD GIVEN THEIR LIVES -


All to gain a few points in the overnight polls.


These are the truly worthless scum of the Earth -

Thank you very much.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 3, 2011 9:34 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not ambivalent about abortion."

I didn't say ambivalent. I meant that there some level of doubt as to the absolute morality of abortion. In that someone could make the opposite decision to a decision you would make and still have made a moral decision. Because you think there is a gray area, unlike something like slavery. Always wrong, no matter what.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 3, 2011 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Srw3 and JennofArk, I responded to your queries on the "Rethuglican's, Why Are You Such Heartless, Soul Crushing B@st@rds?" thread. ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 3, 2011 9:35 PM | Report abuse

DDawd--I think the three categories you draw are useful. There are many things we'd be better off discussing as something that's not either or, though most political differences derive from disagreements about what things fall where.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, lmsinca. I wasn't really trying to garner sympathy as much as make a point that I thought might be stronger with the example. But I appreciate you kindness.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 9:47 PM | Report abuse

From morning thread for ruk:

"Because I don't self Identify as a Christian..does not mean I do not accept the teachings of Jesus Christ."

Actually, it quite does mean that, since he taught, inter alia, that he was/is God and the only way to God. You don't accept his core teaching about himself and God.

"Nope, total poppycock..simply more of YOUR OPINION without the first example of exactly what Obama has said or done that informs your skepticism."

Of course it's my opinion, as I said. Stating a rational opinion doesn't require citation of factual details. I gave rational reasons for an opinion. Your disagreement doesn't make it irrational, any more than your failure to cite factual proof of O's Christianity makes your opinion irrational.

If you'd like to investigate, go research Obama's public statements about his faith. Not my job.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 3, 2011 9:50 PM | Report abuse

In that someone could make the opposite decision to a decision you would make and still have made a moral decision.
----------------------------------------------------
You know, ddawd, I had to think about this a little. I try not to call someone else immoral (although I don't always succeed). I try to keep my judgment about morality to apply to myself. What I call someone (moral or immoral) doesn't matter very much anyway. What matters is the human life that get extinguished because some poor 17 year old can't imagine how she's going to get along with a baby or how she'll live with putting her baby up for adoption, so she takes the course of least resistance. If I can actually help her, in her real problems, like work, like transportation, like childcare, that's a lot more important than any label I put on her.

Help, not labels.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Can you think of an analogous phenomenon.""

Nope. Although perhaps reality itself? Can you prove or demonstrate that everything you think you experience isn't just a creation of your own mind? Yet you still operate under the presumption, and the language you use is grounded in the assumption, that reality is, um, real, despite your inability to prove it.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 3, 2011 9:54 PM | Report abuse

I think people are too timid about sharing life experiences with each other, not so much to gain sympathy, but because it is those experiences that define who we are. I believe by getting to know people more intimately, even if it's just on an anonymous blog, it helps us to understand their positions and opinions more clearly. And besides that it's much more difficult to call a friend by a nasty name :>).

It doesn't seem to work with everyone though.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 3, 2011 9:56 PM | Report abuse

"DDawd--I think the three categories you draw are useful. There are many things we'd be better off discussing as something that's not either or, though most political differences derive from disagreements about what things fall where."

Yeah, it's an oversimplification (for instance, I'm not talking about context.), but I think it's an interesting discussion to have. In science, we have things we know and things we don't know. (And a bunch of shades in between)

Take hundreds of years ago when people were debating between a spherical earth and a flat earth. People had their opinions, but no one knew for sure. Someone could say the earth was flat without being a moron. People weren't relativistic about the shape of the earth. Clearly at least one party was wrong. It's just that we don't know. I believe one thing, but I can allow that someone might believe something different. No one said "well, from his point of view, the world is flat"

But things change. Anyone who claims the world is flat today is an idiot.

And I think the same sort of thinking can apply to morality. Anyone who advocates genocide is immoral. There's no doubt about it. It's the moral equivalent of a fact. An opinion on abortion might be considered the moral equivalent of a conjecture. I may think that abortion is wrong, but I'm not so dead certain that I would say the opposite opinion is immoral. (again, I'm not putting any context into the genocide/abortion hypothetical for the sake of simplicity. I'm sure someone could come up with some outlandish scenario where I might be convinced genocide is ok.)

Posted by: DDAWD | February 3, 2011 9:56 PM | Report abuse

@ABC

"I'm a fiction writer and my main characters are male as often as female. It's a requirement of the imaginative life to be able to go different places."

I understand what you are saying and certainly I have plenty of female characters in my stories as well as men. But when I really think about it I'm writing from my perspective...from those "clues" I've picked up from my interactions with women...and perhaps what makes my moderator's story fascinate me more is that she is writing it first person as a male hockey player. I too am a hockey fan so she appreciates my input as to her authenticity. For example she had her character have an awful fight on the ice with another character...she had her guy apologize...and I said...whoaa..when hockey guys beat the hell out of each other there is a certain respect that goes along with that...a hockey player would NEVER apologize to another for a fight on the ice. In fact in our testosterone world that would simply be adding insult to injury. :-) Perhaps that is a "guy" thing. Perhaps you are able to be enough of a "guy" to pull off writing in the first person male. Me..contrary to what Brigade will want to say two seconds after this post...I am not enough of a girl to really write authentically from a female 1st person perspective. I can write about females in the second or third person because I've experienced them that way. Anyway glad to hear you're a writer. We used to have a wonderful poster BGinChi who was also a writer. If you ever get to St. Pete Florida I'll have to invite you to our group.

BTW About you illness...I wish you the best...and while I meditate...I consider it the equivalent of prayer and so I'll keep you in my evening meditation. I wish you the very best of health and will try and send you positive spiritual energy...if you believe in such stuff.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 9:57 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""First, I don't even know what the word "objective" could possibly mean in this context. As opposed to subjective?""

Precisely, yes. In other words, does it exist as a thing in the outside world, or is it nothing more than a creation of your own mind? That is what it means. That is why I drew the distinction between objective morality, and one's own personal attempt to understand the contents of that morality. If morality is subjective, then there is no truth value to moral notions, and so whatever one thinks is moral or immoral is, necessarily, moral and immoral, for no other reason than that one thinks it.

""Universal? Yes.""

Thank you.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 3, 2011 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps we can create a list of moral versus immoral behaviours. It would not take long before we would have a list of exceptions. For example, I might say that murder is immoral. Then, I might notice that if I'm a supporter of capital punishment I have this sticky little problem Well, I could define murder as not including capital punishment or some such contrivance. Then, there's the problem of war. If murder is immoral, then war must be immoral. And so on.

Morality is a deep, deep subject, not so conducive to cut and dried answers. It should be treated carefully, gently and thoughtfully. That's not to say that a cogent approach to morality that universally applies couldn't be developed, but it is a lifetime project to define it.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 10:08 PM | Report abuse

@ABC, lmsinca...any ladies or guys for that matter.

Why is it if Brigade..or anybody..calls me a girl...he'd probably use more colorful language that borrows from a colloquialism about female private parts...that is an insult? Well if he used the colloquialism I get why it's an insult..but why would it be insulting for him to call me a woman?

If I approach lmsinca and say..you're a real man! Is that just as perjorative?

Just wonderin'.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 10:09 PM | Report abuse

ruk--Not going anywhere these days but if I were being lofted somewhere on that positive energy, Florida would work.

Have you ever read a wonderful novella by Jane Smiley called "The Age of Grief"? She does a pitch perfect job writing from the first person male point of view. It should be right up your alley in any case as the main characters are dentists!

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 10:10 PM | Report abuse

12bb, that's why I'm using such broad categories. I don't want to map the minefield. Just talk about how I might go about doing it if I really wanted to. And I think we can do it without actually discussing our true beliefs if we stick to plausible hypotheticals.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 3, 2011 10:17 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar

Your 10:08 post was truly impressive.
Hear! Hear!

Given what I heard about you when you first joined us with the others from the Fix I am continually amazed. Of course I've also learned the source of the slanders against you and alas with all of you great posters from the Fix came some real pieces of work and I'm sure I don't have to name names.

I find it funny how many of them have carried their grudge against Cao with them here to the Plumline. But I realize what is going on and I feel sorry for those poor folks. You and Cao are both very bright, articulate, well read,..pretty much everything they are not. No wonder they react with so much vitriol...ah but that's their problem...knowing you 12Bar you send them love...Cao...dude..I'm not sure what you're sending them. LMAO

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 10:21 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""That's not to say that a cogent approach to morality that universally applies couldn't be developed, but it is a lifetime project to define it. ""

I agree, although probably many lifetimes. Philosophers through the ages have tried and failed.

Bernie, on the other hand, thinks we're deluding ourselves. (even as he routinely makes appeals to the very notion that he claims is not real.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 3, 2011 10:21 PM | Report abuse

"If I approach lmsinca and say..you're a real man! Is that just as perjorative?"

If you were referring to my "strength" I would take it as a compliment, if it was my looks, I'd definitely be insulted. As far as the converse goes I don't think men like to be considered soft but sometimes sensitive will work. A lot of women are wondering what's going on with Boehner and the tears, if a woman did that in public so often they'd get no respect. It's all very confusing isn't it?

Posted by: lmsinca | February 3, 2011 10:26 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar

May I turn your discussion on morality to one of "blog morality". Doubt we'd all agree with each other on that. LOL

But here's an opinion. If someone calls me an effing moron...that to me is simple poor taste, juvenile (yes I'm guilty as anybody else)puerile, boorish..well you get the drift, I don't think it rises to immoral.

But when several yahoos on this blog use a genuine tragedy like the death of two police officers in St. Petersburg and all the attendant suffering for their wives and kids and indeed our entire community, to simply score political points...that does breach my "personal" morality.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

ruk--If you call lmsinca a real man, it suggests that women as a gender are usually lacking in wonderful male attributes, so it probably wouldn't be welcome. But I'm thinking it would be dumb more than pejorative.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Of course I've also learned the source of the slanders against you and alas with all of you great posters from the Fix came some real pieces of work and I'm sure I don't have to name names.
--------------------------------------------------------
I think that Rainforest really came to dislike me when I started my Tick Tock campaign, as in:

Cillizza is going to ban you. Tick, tock.....

Then, of course Cillizza did ban him after a couple of weeks.

Bwhahahaha!!! It was all worth it.

Signed, the not so saintly 12BarBlues

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Discussion forum factoid #1.

The posters with the weakest arguments employ the greatest amount of ad hominem.

Posted by: mmyotis | February 3, 2011 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Discussion forum factoid #2

Posters who say Case Closed are hoping.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 10:37 PM | Report abuse

@ABC

Thanks for the tip. I'll look up Jane Smiley's "The Age of Grief"? BGinChi recommended two books to me on this blog that I enjoyed very much. Your recommendation has even more irony. My wife is the dentist of course...in a male world..not so much any more since more than 50% of Dental School grads are women.

My wife was the ONLY female in her class at Emory which is in Atlanta. It was still so old south when she attended she had to get special permission from the Dean to wear slacks in the operatories.
Can you imagine trying to straddle a dental stool in a skirt? I've seen first hand what she's gone through working her way up through the ranks of leadership in "organized dentistry" ADA,FDA etc..a real "good ole boys" network. And so a novel written by a woman..as a man..and a dentist has all kinds of appeal.

In addition to sexism, I've also seen so much racism in my life that it's been impossible for me to ignore.

I've shared before that my sister once told my mother.."Mom we were trash when we were growing up." My mom and I joke we are "recovering trash" my sister married a Cardiologist..lives in a mansion on a hill..she is no longer trash. :-) Me..I'm certainly better off financially, a decent education...but I suspect I'll always be trash :-). Perhaps that is why my idol is John Steinbeck...his prose is sometimes breathtaking and his subject matter...how we trashies live...well he's my all time fave.

If...when..you regain your energy I'm serious about the invite to St. Pete. I'm married and old so I'm not dangerous. LOL
I love chatting and hanging with writers and we have a couple of excellent writers conferences each year..one at Eckerd College draws a few big name authors each year. I've probably taken too much blog space posting about writing..but I'm so tired of legal arguments..lol..if the attorneys could spend the past two days quoting cases and precedents..OMG does that bore me..they can put up with us boring them.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 10:47 PM | Report abuse

"But when several yahoos on this blog use a genuine tragedy like the death of two police officers in St. Petersburg and all the attendant suffering for their wives and kids and indeed our entire community, to simply score political points...that does breach my "personal" morality."

Not to mention that as they are not politicians, political points are as useful to them as DDAWD Dollars.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 3, 2011 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Hahaha! Here's a post I was going to make earlier, but I ran out of time:

"Obama should resign immediately.

The authority he is claiming was never INTENDED by Congress - nor mentioned by anyone when the law passed.

The man thinks he is a dictator - here to impose his liberal agenda, socialist agenda and perhaps MUSLIM AGENDA on the United States of America.

Case closed."

How many times have you declared that the case was closed RTF? What's with that? Do you think if you repeat it enough times that it might actually become true?

Or are you simply attempting to be as disruptive of the discussion here as you possibly can?

Just wondering....

Tom

Posted by: mmyotis | February 3, 2011 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Discussion forum factoid #3

Posters who are reduced to posting forum factoids should probably go to bed.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 3, 2011 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Good night, ScottC3.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 10:54 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

""I'm married""

Does your wife know about your crush on 12Bar? ;)

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 3, 2011 10:55 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues says that "Judgment is for God or perhaps for priests" yet she posted the following in this morning's abortion debate:

"I've walked the walk which is more than you have"

Not only full of righteous judgment on her part, but also with a healthy dose of condemnation for good measure.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 11:04 PM | Report abuse

@Scott

Probably not. :-)

12Bar is far more enlightened than me...I'd be too intimidated...12Bar would be a lot to live up to for a decadent sinner like myself. In fact I have enough trouble living up to my wife's standards. LOL

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 11:11 PM | Report abuse

ruk--Boy and girl dentists in that novella.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Not only full of righteous judgment on her part, but also with a healthy dose of condemnation for good measure.
---------------------------------------------
Ok, clawrence, you're not going to like this, but get ready. I was thumbin' through my handy condensed, pocket bible and I noticed that it said Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, except you can take out a goodly portion on Clawrence. But stoppeth before he is dead saith the Lord.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 11:12 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD, Paul Krugman is not a politician either, yet he tried to score political points right after the Tucson tragedy. I simply posed the same questions he did after the St. Petersburg shootings.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 11:12 PM | Report abuse

"Not to mention that as they are not politicians, political points are as useful to them as DDAWD Dollars"

LOL Exactly. But I guess we all come here to fulfill different needs...and some of the poor folk here are very, very needy when it comes to scoring political points.

That's why I was more than happy to give clawrence credit for his 1-0 "win" over me tonight. And so DDAWD how many DDAWD $$ did clawrence earn for that victory?

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Judgment is different than Vengeance (although Romans 13:4 speaks as to both).

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 3, 2011 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Judgment is different than Vengeance (although Romans 13:4 speaks as to both).
----------------------------------------------
Maybe the Lord saith wrong then. Don't worry.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 3, 2011 11:23 PM | Report abuse

"A lot of women are wondering what's going on with Boehner and the tears, if a woman did that in public so often they'd get no respect. It's all very confusing isn't it?"

Personally I don't really have any trouble with Boehner being emotional...see I almost said getting in touch with his feminine side.
You're right lmsinca it's very confusing...and indeed generally speaking if a woman opened up the faucets as frequently as Boehner she'd be toast politically.

But I think context has something to do with it. Remember when Hillary broke down during the primaries...it was actually a good thing...up till then I believe many people...perhaps me if I'm honest..but remember I've never forgiven the bubba and I was an Obama supporters and so obviously biased..but many of us thought..at last..she is human. Hillary was one of those rare exceptions who perhaps was actually too tough. At any rate I actually grew to like her more after the tears...well maybe after I saw how hard she worked for Obama after what was a very bitter disappointment. She got beau coup points from me there and not just because of Obama but because of the way Hillary handled defeat.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 11:25 PM | Report abuse

I know it's getting late but here's a really interesting piece by Yves Smith re some of the new shenanigans and mortgage financing. She explains some of the best and worst ideas for unwinding Freddie and Fannie. Unsurprisingly the banks are chomping at the bit and the Rubinites might just try to give them what they want. It's worth a read tomorrow if it's too late tonight. I'm always wary of what's going on under the covers while we're distracted with things like Egypt (not a distraction to them of course) and HCR repeal.

""Skeptics will argue that the private mortgage market, ex Fannie and Freddie, is pretty much dead. That’s correct, but the logic in having more heavily backstopped GSEs as the remedy is all wrong. The reason we have virtually no private securitization market right now is investors are on strike. And the reason they are still on the sidelines is the securitization industry has fought sensible pro-investor reforms tooth and nail. As we pointed out, the FDIC put forward a very well thought out plan a full year ago and presented it at the American Securitization Forum. The ASF, which represents the sell side (it pretends to represent the entire industry, including investors, but anyone close to the action knows better) has thrown its full weight against it as well as a weaker plan from the SEC. So the banks are engaged in a full bore effort to continue to suck as much blood as possible from the general public rather than clean up their act and suffer reduced profits and top brass bonuses.""

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/wall-street-co-opting-nominally-liberal-think-tanks-banks-lobbying-to-become-new-gses.html

Posted by: lmsinca | February 3, 2011 11:29 PM | Report abuse

My cat is giving me the hairy eyeball..like it's time for bed.

Night all...

And Good luck Egyptians..keep up the good fight.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 3, 2011 11:29 PM | Report abuse

I have to add this. The NYT has an interesting post on the Wikipedia gender discrepancy from someone who's actually been researching Internet communication for twenty years--
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia/communication-styles-make-a-difference

Here are a few of the points:
The tone of much on-line discourse, while offputting to both men and women, bothers women more;
Women prefer a non-assertive style in stating facts, which doesn't fit a site like Wikipedia that requires a Joe Friday, just the facts ma'am approach;
Internet sites are public spaces and according to Susan C. Herring, the writer of the piece, men feel "more sense of entitlement to occupy public spaces";
Sites that allow women to control content by filtering out "flamers and harrassers" have drawn women in a way that previous Internet sites did not.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 3, 2011 11:47 PM | Report abuse

""Sites that allow women to control content by filtering out "flamers and harrassers" have drawn women in a way that previous Internet sites did not.""

Maybe Greg will see this, or maybe he doesn't care, I didn't get much of a response re a woman guest blogger. The guys will all scream bloody murder though about free speech, LOL.

Honestly though, if it wasn't for Kevin, I wouldn't be here anymore. It just wasn't worth it.

Off to bed, night all. Prayers ABC

Posted by: lmsinca | February 3, 2011 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Obama and the liberals in the Senate are going to be INSISTING ON DRAGGING DOWN THE ECONOMY AND JOBS FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.


It is pretty simple. By hanging onto the massive taxes and expensive health insurance costs in Obama's plan, the democrats in the Senate are dragging down hiring.

So: IS IT MORAL to keep millions of people out of work, just to have an expensive health care bill that they think will help others?


HOWEVER, what about the millions who will be running out of unemployment benefits, and who will be running out of health care benefits?


THE IRONY is the truth: Obama's plan will ultimately result in MORE PEOPLE NOT HAVING HEALTH INSURANCE.

And the situation is even worse if one believes that Obama and the Senate democrats are CLINGING to a health care bill that will eventually get repealed or declared UnConstitutional.


IT IS IMMORAL TO KEEP OBAMA'S HEALTH PLAN IN PLACE.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Inmsinca


YOU have a woman blogger - her name is Jennifer Rubin

voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn

You are whining like you don't know that the Washington Post is owned and run by a woman.


Please stop all this gender-and-race group politics.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Liberals who did that ad against Paul Ryan


Complete idiots.

Yea, one person is going to be convinced by that stupid ad. They are going to lose more people than gain. And how much money did they spend?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Judgment is different than Vengeance (although Romans 13:4 speaks as to both).

by clawrence

__________________________

Yes, Greg Sargent's writings are completely void of good judgement -


HOWEVER they are always filled with vengeance.......


Vengeance agains his perceived slights resulting from the correct thinking of others........

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Ims: "Maybe Greg will see this, or maybe he doesn't care, I didn't get much of a response re a woman guest blogger."

Ims, I'm going to throw some questions out here mostly as a point of curiosity. (I hope you will see this post, if not now, in the morning.) ABC, 12BB, ruk, Liam, DDAWD, mike, etc. if any of you want to throw your two cents in, feel free.

Do you think Greg reads the comments? If so, how thoroughly? Have you gotten any indication from him here in this space that he knows about the female front-pager conversation? (If you have, enlighten me, as I have totally missed it.) How confident are you that a change to the comment software is imminent? (IIRC, it's been under review and imminent since he returned after Labor Day...) What motivation does WaPo have to change the software in the first place?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 4, 2011 12:36 AM | Report abuse

I thought Hillary was pretty classless after Obama won those ten states in a row. With the rule changes, the class warfare, the RFK comment, and so forth. I think if Hillary would have won the primary and the general election were held ten minutes later, I'd have voted for McCain. But I feel she redeemed herself after the race was officially over she really did work hard for Obama. The Democrats came together at the end. Most likely that would have happened anyways, but kudos to Clinton for putting in the effort.

As for crying, I was surprised (pleasantly) that Clinton didn't get more flak for her moment before New Hampshire. In a political sense, I don't think much of Boehner's crying. His policies are awful and no amount of stoicism would change that. However, I do think it's pretty weird. And he gets shielded from a lot of flak because he's a Republican. You think Limbaugh and company would sit quietly if Obama were to have cried in public?

Posted by: DDAWD | February 4, 2011 12:45 AM | Report abuse


Personal plea: Please let's stop calling these folks "skeptics," as if they've based their conclusions about Obama's faith on recognizably rational thought processes and can somehow be persuaded to change their minds.

____________________________

Greg Sargant and the liberals:


Personal Plea: LETS STOP CALLING ANYONE ANYTHING.

The liberals seem to insist on calling their opponents all sorts of condescending names.


At this point, Greg Sargent is trying to say: these people should not be given the respect we are giving, they are actually EVEN LOWER on the evolutionary scale.


This kind of mocking, pathetic attitude does nothing for CIVIL discussion or debate.

All it does is LASH OUT HOSTILITY AT PEOPLE WHO GREG HAS DECIDED HE DOESNT LIKE


Let's start to debate OPINIONS, NOT HATE THE PEOPLE.


The liberals have really engaged in this behavior way too much.


Let's keep the people out of it - focus on the opinion. So this crap that Greg is pulling is really ridiculous

__________________


RIDICULOUS

Especially because Greg is attacking - attempting to say that these other people have no facts


When the truth is Greg has ZERO FACTS. There is NOTHING to support Greg's assertions at all.


And yet, we have these quotes from Obama himself - he can recite all the Muslim prayers - and the Muslim call to prayer is the the most wonderful sound in the world - according to Obama.


EVERYONE has these statements from Obama.


Greg has ZERO to stand on, and yet he wants to get nasty with other people - claiming THEY have nothing to stand on.


The nerve - Greg is acting like a little twit who always ends up opening his mouth and ends up getting beaten up.

In the real world, people do not tolerate people like Greg - people like Greg LEARN TO BE CIVIL BECAUSE PEOPLE MAKE HIM BE CIVIL


At this point, Greg is just the little twit who won't shut up and learn to get along with everyone else.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 12:53 AM | Report abuse

Sue

Do you read the comments?

It is not enough for you that the Washington Post is run by a woman?

NOT enough affirmative action for you?


How about that they hired a woman to run a blog - Jennifer Rubin

voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn


How much affirmative action is enought. You take all these groups - and they all want more than 100% of the available slots.


HOW ABOUT MERIT ?


HOW ABOUT THE BEST WRITER, REGARDLESS OF GENDER, RACE ETHNIC GROUP GETS THE SLOT?


no, all you care about is gender and race.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent

At this point, YOU should not be called a "skeptic" on Obama's religion. Perhaps you should be referred to ONLY AS A FICTION WRITER.

YOU are the one who has ZERO BASIS for making the statements which you do.

Instead of reasoning, you are pushing fiction.


_________________________


Greg writes today:

Obama to prove yet again to "skeptics" that he's Christian: The President is set to give what the White House calls a "deeply personal address" about his faith at today's National Prayer Breakfast, and no matter what he says, it won't do a thing to stop people from saying his public displays of faith have somehow been wanting.

Personal plea: Please let's stop calling these folks "skeptics," as if they've based their conclusions about Obama's faith on recognizably rational thought processes and can somehow be persuaded to change their minds.

______________

Please, Obama was raised a Muslim

The Obama joined a HATE CHURCH, run by BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY


That is not christianity - sorry people.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Sue, lmsinca asked Greg Tuesday morning if he was aware of the front page woman guest blogger discussion and he said yes, though that was all. I think he's a really fair person and does care about these things, but he's not a tech guy himself and his hands may be somewhat tied by being part of the WAPO operation. I know he doesn't like losing commenters due to a toxic environment and has usually been quite receptive to concerns in the past. I don't know what the delay in the software fix is.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 4, 2011 1:08 AM | Report abuse

ABC: "lmsinca asked Greg Tuesday morning if he was aware of the front page woman guest blogger discussion and he said yes, though that was all."

Good to know! As I said, I totally missed it.


ABC: " I think he's a really fair person and does care about these things."

Yes, I do, too. I've been reading Greg since early in his days at TPM, and really Greg is the only reason WaPo gets any clicks from me. (And Erza, but not as regularly.)

ABC: "he's not a tech guy himself and his hands may be somewhat tied by being part of the WAPO operation. I know he doesn't like losing commenters due to a toxic environment and has usually been quite receptive to concerns in the past."

I think his hands are totally tied, but that's just my impression. And, I know he doesn't like losing commenters. I'm sure of it.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 4, 2011 1:26 AM | Report abuse

I'm coming at the abortion issue from a different angle than the rest of you.  The idea that a fetus is equivalent to a person by virtue of human descent and the sequence of its DNA cuts no ice with me.  Until it has a mind of its own, a unique experience of the world an internal life, it's nothing more than a collection of cells, just like a hangnail or an epithelial shedding, save that its DNA is a new and unique scrambling.  In other words I see consciousness as the pivotal, rights-justifying attribute, not human DNA.

And until someone can show me that consciousness, as in *self-awareness*, appears before birth, sorry, I see no significant moral issue in abortion, even at the latest stages.  Yeah a late stage abortion terminates something that looks more like a baby than a guppy.  So what.  It's still an empty vessel.  And I don't really care if it exhibits neural activity ("brain waves," sheesh, how 1950s tinfoil SF), so does a tapeworm.  That isn't self-awareness. 

I have one personal perspective on this .. Cursed with an exceedingly good memory, ranging all the way back to breast-feeding, I remember the dawning of my own awareness, remember it clearly, and remember nothing before it.  I was still crawling.  I had to be months old.  Prior to that there was nothing to experience anything but basic drives; hunger, discomfort, and so on.  And no I am not opening the door to infanticide by.noting that self-awareness antedates birth, I am however saying that endowing rights at parturition is an exceedingly safe judgment and generous criterion.

Secondly, I think this "sanctity of human life" is purely religious BS based on creation myths that I don't believe in.  I can't help but note that a lot of the conservative pro life crowd are completely indifferent to the idea of wiping out entire species at the same time they see murder in the abortion of an acephalic human fetus. So at the root of this controversy I see speciesism, just another bigotry, one that says a human life has infinite value while other lives have none.  I don't buy this.  If you do, you should go to a mall soemtime.  Or watch that video of Carly Fiorina talking to the tea baggers.  Sacred life?  Grow up.

Summary: it's the termination of self-awareness that is murder, not of incidentally human DNA.  I see a greater sin in killing a parrot than in aborting a human fetus; a parrot is self-aware.  I expect a lot of faux outrage at this, save it, not interested, but this is morally consistent while "abortion is murder" is merely emotional.

I would rather there were no abortions.  As a way to not bear children it's draconian and sloppy.  I wish contraception was the rule and the conception of zygotes was exclusively by choice and that humans were rational about reproduction.  But we aren't.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 3:57 AM | Report abuse

I don't think much of Boehner's crying. His policies are awful and no amount of stoicism would change that. However, I do think it's pretty weird.

==

I think it's calculated, like Beck's. I do think Boehner's are genuine as opposed to Beck's vap-o-rub fakes but the intent is the same, tears of rage, an extreme expression of patriotic schmalz, pretended love of country to rake in the rubes and their outrage at seeing a black man behind the presidential seal.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 4:10 AM | Report abuse

Oh, yeah, a hearty chúc mừng năm mới to all the readers who live under the lunar calendar. And I thought Christmas in the USA was a riot of pageantry.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 4:40 AM | Report abuse

Shorter cao:

cao loves cao.

cao loves cao's parrot.

Posted by: tao9 | February 4, 2011 6:43 AM | Report abuse

""I would rather there were no abortions. As a way to not bear children it's draconian and sloppy.""

In much the same way, one imagines, that cutting one's fingernails is "draconian and sloppy".

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 4, 2011 7:09 AM | Report abuse

Well Scott given your other positions, do younreally expect me to take your moral claims seriously?

"a single human fetusnis worth more than all the whales in the oven."

"A sick child has no right to othwrs' labor."

So, no, I think your opposition to abortion is doctrinal, not moral.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 7:17 AM | Report abuse

"""Sites that allow women to control content by filtering out "flamers and harrassers" have drawn women in a way that previous Internet sites did not.""

Everyone knows I want troll blocking as much as anyone, but I find this idea that women who comment are too sensitive for the fray a bit dubious. I see female commenters who are as bad as anyone. Without naming current names (you should know who you are), Tena was one of the nastiest commenters ever.

Just seems odd to me.


"Maybe Greg will see this, or maybe he doesn't care, I didn't get much of a response re a woman guest blogger. The guys will all scream bloody murder though about free speech, LOL"

Why would anyone scream about free speech because of troll blocking?


Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Come on, trolls, give it your best shot.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 7:21 AM | Report abuse

QB, are you familiar with the difference between metrics discovered by measuring large groups ... and anecdotes?

I saw a collie chasing a frisbee. I guess all collies love to chase frisbees.

Sheesh.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 7:25 AM | Report abuse

@tao

WTF are you doing here? You should be getting geared up and ready to hit the mountain. How's the snowshoeing adventure shaping up?

You missed my question yesterday. Since you remember Sam Huff I take you to be an older dude like me. Have you been doing any exercise or cardio in preparation for your snowshoeing?

@Cao You're argument is logical and I won't attempt to pick it apart..because I can't. I suspect I'll have to view you in Scott and similar fashion..that is people whose opinion I respect but disagree with in the area of abortion. The EEG definition of "life" seems quite logical to me. If that represents death...then for me at least it also represents life.
I think my opinion is probably very common if not correct or scientific. Most folks get very squeamish about aborting a fetus that already is moving, fully formed feature etc...rather than guess...call me a bit anal...I find comfort in a specific "scientific" marker that can be measured and quantified. Given that it's hard to imagine being "self aware" without brain function I feel very comfortable with the EEG line in the sand. I think it comes somewhere around 24-27 weeks. That seems to me to be ample time to make what I concede is a very difficult and emotional decision...certainly the product of incest or rape could be taken care of long before six months. As far as anything later, it would have to be a genuine threat to the mother's health before I'd feel comfortable. Last night Brigade tossed out what turned out to be a red herring...claiming women were simply using "emotional distress" instead of actual "physical" health threats. Jenn countered with the statistic of just 90 late term abortions last year and so perhaps brigade exaggerated the problem. Brigade exaggerate a threat..imagine that! :-)

I think my main difficulty with your view Cao is that at some point the fetus could live on it's own outside the womb...before parturition...and that's where people do go nuts...understandably IMHO..because that truly does seem like infanticide. Just sayin'.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 7:34 AM | Report abuse

cao:

""Well Scott given your other positions, do younreally expect me to take your moral claims seriously?""

The point was that you don't seem to take your own moral claims seriously.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 4, 2011 7:41 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD on Boehner's tear ducts...

"However, I do think it's pretty weird. And he gets shielded from a lot of flak because he's a Republican. You think Limbaugh and company would sit quietly if Obama were to have cried in public?"

They'd rip him apart. And it would be ubiquitous and non-stop for years. "He's a wimp!" It's the compassion thing. And it's the empathy thing.

I don't think I've written a single word on Boehner's crying. But I will. I find this behavior a real curiosity. When he cries, it's about himself. It takes the form of, "That a person of low beginnings like me could reach such a level of public recognition and success...what a great country this is." But I've not seen him cry in consideration of Obama's ascent. Or Bill Clinton's either. Or Reagan's. I suppose that is somewhat understandable but it sure seems to be centered on self exclusively.

And it is very public and it has to do, apparently, with "people really like me". I don't think it relates to economic success or even to ascent up the ladder to a position of power. I mean, does he suddenly stop somewhere on the 12th hole at his private golf course, look around at the lovely and picturesque scene with the streams and oaks and golf carts designed to look like little Rolls Royces and begin blubbering at his good fortune to be born in America? I'm guess that doesn't happen.

It's very odd.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 4, 2011 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Good grief. NRO is in full Reagan-worship mode. Go take a peak if you care to but I'm not sure I can recommend it. It's like a combination of Zeus, Jesus, the yellow brick road and treacle.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 4, 2011 7:52 AM | Report abuse

With all the complaints about standards around here, is it too much to ask everyone to raise their standards of comments?

There is too much chit-chat around here.

Too many people appear EAGER to dive into a fight.


SORRY GREG, but many of the partisan things you say are downright OFFENSIVE.

The offensive comments of Greg Sargent lends itself to fighting on the blog. First, people say to themselves, that they can go up to at least that level of nastiness.

So, in a way, Greg has set the tone here.

Greg can't go on this discussion of "what name to call the opposition," without the other side doing the same.


THIS BASIC DISRESPECT shown toward the opposition by Greg is picked up by all the people who comment.

Let's clean it up people.

Frankly, if the liberals are going to get obnoxious, insisting on their point-of-view. the other side is entitled to defend themselves and meet them in-kind.

A person who is nasty and somehow believes that everyone else should be polite in return is just living in a world that does not exist. Nasty, partisan obnoxious comments from Greg are RIGHTFULLY MET with the same.

At that point, escalation happens all the time. No one knows where the boundaries.


So once Greg starts up with the name-calling and attacks - no one sees ANY boundary.


There is no POLITENESS which is shown to the opposition here.

And then some people who engage in rude and obnoxious behavior are the first to complain about someone else.

Well, the polite behavior starts right there with you.


Cao is just a horrible person who has made zero effort to get along with anyone for over three years. He is dragging down this blog. 12BarBluesAgain brought him here on purpose, knowing full well what he would do.


The people who come onto this blog with the attitude "I want this place to be how I want it, or I will complain, complain or leave." - Well that is UNCIVIL - and truthfully those complaining do not have the QUALITY OF COMMENTS to make such a complaint.

Sorry guys - you need to clean up your act.

But don't think that you are going to able to be nasty and no one is going to be nasty or just a little worse in return.

YOU know who I am talking about.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 8:02 AM | Report abuse

@Q.B.

" but I find this idea that women who comment are too sensitive for the fray a bit dubious. I see female commenters who are as bad as anyone.
Just seems odd to me."

Perhaps we shouldn't call them sensitive then, simply aware and having good taste, and some class and dignity.
I left the blog for three months for that very reason. Again I have a yoga class today..and when I go I will have my spirit uplifted...I will be a better person..spiritually, mentally, as well as physically. It will be a POSITIVE experience in my life.

Do not get me wrong, I'm not suggesting this or any online blog owes me an uplifting experience; on the other hand I don't wish to wallow in the mud and I think it prudent of Greg if he wishes to maintain a group of intelligent, thoughtful, and (you say sensitive, I say aware and possessing some class and taste) he should provide protection from at least the one person who appears to be ill, and some of the other flame throwers whose entire reason for being here is to hurl invective. So Greg where the eff is WaPo's troll blocker?

I think fleshing out your point actually confirms what the ladies...and I agree with them...are saying. Yes Tena was one of the guys! As in ONE. Now we have ONE who has somewhat taken up the mantle of Tena although IMO Jenn is a lot more restrained. That is, she doesn't hurl insults willy nilly like a number of male posters here...if someone calls her Jenn of Arf...she'll certainly take the bait.:-) But Jenn is largely restrained compared to many of the males. Again though Q.B. even conceding your point, she is ONE. Which means we have ONE female who gives as good as she gets...versus how many males...and as opposed to lmsinca, ABC,12Bar,Sue, apologies to those whom I have forgotten, these ladies are all very measured, and thoughtful posters. IMO if the guys emulated these ladies..and some do..it would be a better blog.

Which leads me to this question. Troll asked the other night if there was such a thing as a "leftwingnut"...I said besides me? I don't mind that moniker. :-) But let me borrow Troll's question and toss it with more specificity at you Q.B. or anyone else on the right.

Who on the left do you equate with...STRF...KDE..? These two not only spew idiocy, it's mostly simple undisguised HATE! There are a couple of others like that and they share two things in common they are men and they are righties. I suspect you'll wish to respond with Liam...but he also bring a sense of humor...links and solid information. Q.B you and I have shared our own days in the gutter as have Cao and some others from the left and right...but we've also conducted some very interesting mannerly debates..as have Liam, Cao and most of the others right and left. The two I used as examples bring nothing to this blog but vitriol! I could have tossed in the late, great(in his own mind)bilgey..at least he was honest enough up front to label his posts accurately as bilge.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 8:02 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn't know, ruk, I find Brigade to be psychically toxic and I make a point of not reading his posts. I remember him from The Fix and he's about 95% insults.

As for abortion morals, I don't seek to move the goalposts, rather to resist their being moved by the punitive members of the pro life crowd. My point is that the sacredness of human life is junk because it's religious and because it leaves the rest of the natural kingdom as disposable. It's consciousness that deserves protection, not DNA. And humans don't have a corner on self-awareness. At some point machines will have it too, then were going to have some real arguments.

I have a hard time accepting both that (1) only 90 3rd trimester abortions happen per year as well as that (2) a Down syndrome determination can't be made until then. Ninety percent of women who learn they're bearing a Down get an abortion. Something is wrong with the math there.

And Scott, I I do take my morals seriously. But not yours.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Utterly predictable:

"The Obama administration is discussing with Egyptian officials a proposal for President Hosni Mubarak to resign immediately and turn over power to a transitional government headed by Vice President Omar Suleiman with the support of the Egyptian military, administration officials and Arab diplomats said Thursday."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/world/middleeast/04diplomacy.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=Suleiman&st=cse

Posted by: wbgonne | February 4, 2011 8:08 AM | Report abuse

RU,

It's minus3 degrees here, heading out to the Dix Range when the sun gets up over LacDuChamplain (we're wood-stove camp-cozy as I type).

Walk, skate, stairs and row for cardio. Already snowshoed & x-country skiied alot this season, but a winter peak climb is a whole different gorilla, I'll be way sore Monday.

I'll shout out "RU!" into the winds at the top for ya, it's an old ADK trad.

Posted by: tao9 | February 4, 2011 8:08 AM | Report abuse

"But Mr. Suleiman, a former general, is also the establishment’s candidate, not the public’s. His appointment, and his elevation, if it were to occur, would represent not the democratic change called for on the street, but most likely a continuation of the kind of military-backed, authoritarian leadership that Mr. Mubarak has led for nearly 30 years, experts said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/world/middleeast/30suleiman.html?scp=1&sq=Suleiman&st=cse

Posted by: wbgonne | February 4, 2011 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Cao

No one cares

Are you under the impression that anyone cares?

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 4, 2011 8:11 AM | Report abuse

CPAC's opening keynote speaker this year is Bachmann.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Ronald Reagan will be mentioned during the conference. Yes, apparently there will be a Ronald Reagan Banquet in the Marriott Ballroom, MC Phyllis Schlfly which seems appropriate. There will probably be an Eisenhower Banquet too, I'm sure.

One discussion I'd be sure to take in would be "The Left's Campaign to Reshape the Judiciary".

But they haven't nailed down a Closing Speaker yet. I think Bachmann again would be appropriate. It would give the impression of bookends, therefore books, therefore education. And it would also suggest the expansiveness of both her intellect and her grasp of so many things. But that's just my opinion.

Here's the schedule, if your interested. At the very least I think you folks ought to take a look and then consider sending flowers or chocolates to Weigel for what he will have to endure.

http://www.conservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/SCHEDULE-OF-EVENTS-MASTER-2-3-11WEB.pdf

Posted by: bernielatham | February 4, 2011 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Funny how Reagan's legend grows as he recedes into the past. Everyone seems to have forgotten Iran-Contra, running guns to terrorists and arranging the prolonged keeping of hostages .. taking down the solar panels, inviting a buffoon TV preacher to the White House.

Yeah, optimistic. And disgraceful.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 8:12 AM | Report abuse

@tao

I am happy for you and incredibly envious all at the same time.

Wood stove fire? You make me long for our simple little 500 sq foot cottage on Michigan's U.P. and the shore of Lake Superior. We are not yet winterized there, but when we retire we plan to spend a month there each winter. The Keeweenaw peninsula does not have the majesty of your mountains for snowshoeing but it does contain some of the world's finest cross country skiing trails.

Well you knucklehead I must close with great gratitude..indeed shout out RU into the wind...what a terrific tradition.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammef wants the military to take over Egypt. You know, to stabilize things. So democracy can emerge.

(pause)

He manages to not mention Israel. He must have been biting down hard on his knuckles.

Israel of course is seeing a Khomenei reprise.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 8:18 AM | Report abuse

ruk:

""I could have tossed in the late, great(in his own mind)bilgey...""

Rubbish. Bilge's "vitriol" never came close to that of people like cao, DDAWD, or wbgonne.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 4, 2011 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Belieiving you to be full of it hardly measures up to "vitriol," Scott

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 8:24 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - You can't offer up a coherent or comprehensible thesis as to how such a thing might come to be part of the architecture of the universe. Not can you discern or point to any analogous phenomenon. These are not insignificant problems.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 4, 2011 8:28 AM | Report abuse

@rainman


"Cao

No one cares"


Oops on that one rainman. I care! So much for your silly thesis.

Unlike you Cao posts bright, informed, and cogent posts. I must confess though rainman we also care about you...as in how the hell can we get rid of this major pest.

Rainman having you on this blog is kinda like checking into a hotel with bedbugs.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 8:32 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/the_morning_plum_180.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 4, 2011 8:34 AM | Report abuse

ruk,

I see a danger in responding to your questions here of devolving into a spitting contest. Name names? Who's bad? Risky business, my friend. But, oh well, here goes.

Colonel Kurtz stands alone. You and I have assailed each other, but we've never been in the gutter like him. When he appeared a couple of months ago, this blog really had never seen anything so vile on any side. He's officially and permanently "dead to me" as a commenter (oh no, hate speech?).

Liam to me is truly Sybil. Capable of real decency and humanity at the worst of times, but the rest of the time like a four-year-old. He has a strange and troubled relationship with the truth.

DDAWD seems purely motivated by anger and hatred and seldom says anything with any other purpose but to attack and lash out. If we ever get troll blocking I can use, he will join Colonel Kurtz on my two-lefty block list. WB is on probation to me. He's become pretty unhinged and irrational.

Ethan was/is? one of the unhinged attack dogs. That guy was always something of a kook but devolved over the past few months into nothing more than a NewsReference slogan and insult machine, hermetically sealed off from rationality. He seems to have disappeared immediately after he was viciously blaming the GOP for Tucson and bragging about the form letter to the editor he was distributing demanding that the GOP be held accountable. What a freak. Perhaps all that hatred finally caused him to blow a mental gasket.

As to the women, I certainly haven't done any scientific study, but Jenn isn't alone by any means. There are and have been plenty of other aggressive females here. Now, don't get me wrong. I happen to be someone who does believe that there are broad differences between the sexes, and aggression is one of them. But I've never seen that much difference here between them in levels of verbal sparring. It seems more like style and voice differences to me. (I often try to guess whether someone is male of female. Sometimes you can tell quickly; sometimes not.)

Jenn herself also doesn't just respond but almost always shows up with insults and names blazing. The only difference is that if anyone takes her on she gets sullen and hurt after a while. She's no Ethan or Colonel Kurtz, but hardly a wallflower.

On the right, I don't see KDE the way you do. Maybe I don't read enough of his posts. Rather pointed and caustic sometimes, but he makes legitimate points.

There, I did it. Named some names. So let me have it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

I personally think one of the better cutoffs is viability outside the womb. The cutoff used to be considered about 24 weeks, primarily because fetal lungs had not developed type II pneumocytes before then. However, there have been recent advances in artificially making the stuff that these cells make, so fetuses are viable a little earlier. I believe the youngest ever is something like 20 weeks. Once we get to about 30 weeks, we are talking about a good chance of survival. I'm actually fine with making abortions illegal at this point. The kid has still got some growing to do, but the mom doesn't need to be involved if she doesn't want to.

As for the development of conscious, that's pretty tricky. EEGs are used as the measure of brain death, but that errs (rightfully) way on the cautious side. And so, you're going to make that same distinction about fetuses, I'm going to guess that you can get a positive EEG at about 13 weeks when the fetus can perform skeletal muscle movements. (I'm not an expert in neurology, so I'm not sure). Obviously this is way before viability about when you can start testing for Down Syndrome. EEGs are a good endpoint for death, but I'm not so sure if it's so good to judge the onset of life and certainly not useful for judging consciousness. At least if you want to use a binary criteria. If you want to use more of a sliding scale, a third trimester EEG is almost identical to that of a newborn. A 20 week old has pretty minimal EEG activity.

I don't want to get into too much about EEGs since I'm pretty weak in that area. You might want to google it.

I think I had a point when I started writing this, but I guess facts are probably more useful than my personal interpretation of them.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 4, 2011 8:37 AM | Report abuse

RainForestRising, I agree that we should just stop posting to him.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 4, 2011 8:37 AM | Report abuse

It's so helpful to once again try to determine whose side throws the most flames. The point is, for some of us, not just females, that it's pointless to participate or bother reading at that point. When this place turns into a slugfest with no meaningful debate but just a bunch of locker room insults being vomited back and forth it's pretty pointless to drop in an interesting link or comment. If that's the kind of comment section the majority wants that's fine, just don't expect a lot of lurkers to drop in and be impressed by the quality of the comment section at the Plumline.

Sue

I think Greg reads and cares about his comment section but maybe just not enough to actually do anything proactive about it. He enjoys the slugfests as much as others do and probably hasn't really noticed the amount of great commenters that have slipped through the cracks.

I actually love a spirited debate and don't mind colorful language or any of that, but when it gets to the point of being mind numbingly repetitive and substance free I can usually find something more productive to do. Sensitivity my butt.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 4, 2011 8:39 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "Maybe Greg will see this, or maybe he doesn't care, I didn't get much of a response re a woman guest blogger. The guys will all scream bloody murder though about free speech, LOL."

No, the guys won't. Maybe 25% of them? It was a guy who wrote the Troll Hunter, and, frankly, believes people ought to get to control their experience. You aren't mandated to read the entire newspaper--you can just read the funnies if you want. If something makes that cleaner and easier, why not?

"Honestly though, if it wasn't for Kevin, I wouldn't be here anymore. It just wasn't worth it."

I know. I am breathtakingly attractive. And charming, too. Many people here feel that way, I'm sure, they just can't bring themselves to admit it publicly.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 4, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

@Scott

"Rubbish. Bilge's "vitriol" never came close to that of people like cao, DDAWD, or wbgonne."

Whew Scott...I suspect we're closer on our opinions about abortion or morality than on bilgey's posts. Bilgey rarely brought genuine thought, and his trite and puerile insults such as beginning all his posts with "slave" as in "slave" sargent...
he was beyond tiresome.

But let me suggest perhaps we are talking past each other here. I view "vitriol" perhaps in two different categories. I've seen very "nasty" posts coming from the majority of posters here...in fairness Scott I can't ever remember you with an ad hominem attack or even "vitriol" some serious snark perhaps...I am as guilty as anyone...I've called skippy and effing moron...not a very nice thing to do...Q.B. and I have gone at each other tong and nail a time or two...Liam certainly gives as good as he gets from Brigade...but what differentiates this for me personally..is that it's one thing to lose your temper and fire off an ill advised classless, tasteless post, it's another thing to add zero to any discussion other than the hate and vitriol.

Bilgey did remind me of rainman and kde in that he NEVER had a positive contribution to make...just starting every post with slave and going downhill from there.

I can deal with posters losing their cool and getting vitriolic...I have to since I'm one who does it myself and I dislike hypocrisy. I'm trying to get better which is why I put myself in timeout last night. But if posters continually do so without ever adding to the conversation in any substantive way...as John Lennon said in "Revolution"..."You can count me out."

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 8:46 AM | Report abuse

My vitriol has never come close to the death panel Conservatives. You people have absolutely no moral ground to stand on. Impugning your lack of ability to do basic arithmetic pales in comparison to demonizing those who help the sick.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 4, 2011 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Scott said:

"Rubbish. Bilge's "vitriol" never came close to that of people like cao, DDAWD, or wbgonne."

Second.

He was booted, in the end, just because Greg and a couple of lefties had their undies in a bunch because of Bilgey's "Slave Sargent" motif, which he used to make the cogent point after ACA that the left is making us property of the government.

The guy was hilarious and original if pointed. He wasn't a hater. Greg just couldn't stand the heat.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, well I did notice the other day you found something more interesting to do on a Sunday. With or without the troll blocker this place gets pretty pointless sometimes and no it's not just across a male/female divide. Maybe you missed our discussions of the past couple of nights that ABC brought to the forefront. We just think the place could be slightly altered to bring in more females and one way would be to have a female guest blogger, not to discuss female issues, but for the female perspective if there is one.

And so what if I have a crush on you, you're too young for me anyway. ♫♪♫♪

Posted by: lmsinca | February 4, 2011 8:51 AM | Report abuse

OMG...First Scott suggests I have a crush on 12Bar and now we find out lmsinca has a crush on Kevin...the next thing you know Jenn and Q.B. will be hooking up...then again maybe not. LMAO

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 4, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Second DDAWD on the death panels and the science denial.

People who would stoop to mocking the agony of people facing the end of their lives and their loved ones' grief to score cheap shots, ANC knowingly lying while doing so, are verminous scum and have no match on the other side of the aisle.

And for the life of me I will never understand what people like RFR and JakeD/claw get out the PitA shtick.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""These are not insignificant problems.""

I agree. But, as ever, our argument is not over whether this thing does exist or can be proven to exist, although I know you would like to make it that. It is over whether our claims assume that it exists. They do.

You assert that moral claims are nothing more than an expression of a personal "preference". That is simply not true. I have a guy who sits near me at work who has some very odd and irritating behavioral tics. I would very much prefer that he not behave in the way he does, but I would never describe the behavior as immoral. Condemning something as immoral indicates something quite different than a mere "preference" or even a very strong and passionate "preference". It indicates a violation of some code of behavior that is assumed to apply to all people, even those who think the code says otherwise. This is precisely the force that moral claims hold.

You routinely condemn people like Bill Kristol, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, etc. as either immoral or amoral. In doing so, I am quite sure you mean something totally different than if you condemned broccoli as they worst tasting food in the world. The latter is understood, and is meant to be understood, as nothing more than a personal preference which will have no relevance to the personal tastes of anyone else. But the former is most definitely understood, and more importantly is meant to be understood, as a judgment that not only has relevance to others, but indicates that others "should" come to the same judgement. This is precisely why some people (like 12Bar, as she explained last night) try to avoid passing moral judgments on others. Because such judgements are understood to indicate much, much more than a mere personal "taste" or "preference".

Again, the issue between us is not whether or not an objective, universal morality does exist. It is whether our use of moral notions and language is founded on the presumption that it does exist.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 4, 2011 9:01 AM | Report abuse

PL always has been like junior high. First it was fights, frenemies, etc., now passing love notes.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Scott: Ailes, Limbaugh, and Kristol are merchants of hatenand they all tell a lot of lies.

Do you really need to hold out for a "universal objective morality" before you can bring yourself to pass judgment on liars who incite hate?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 4, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

ruk:

""Bilgey rarely brought genuine thought...""

I suspect that you were distracted by his mocking style (which is, I think, precisely the problem with such a style) and the fact that his politics were not yours. Bilge was often quite insightful and made some very good observations. He was particularly good on the whole oil spill debacle last summer.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 4, 2011 9:22 AM | Report abuse

"Do you really need to hold out for a "universal objective morality" before you can bring yourself to pass judgment on liars who incite hate?"

No. Scott will call you out for vitriol for insulting him, but mocking someone with Parkinson's is morally neutral in his eyes. We all see the world differently. That doesn't mean that all our views are equally valid. Any one who didn't have the conceit that Sarah Palin would **** his brains out if he said Conservative Things on a message board would differ pretty greatly from Scott's view of morality.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 4, 2011 9:27 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3, you must have missed this from 12BarBlues on the prior thread:

"I've walked the walk which is more than you have"

Not only full of righteous judgment on her part, but also with a healthy dose of condemnation for good measure. She is as vicious, if not more so given how subtle it is, than JennOfArk.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 4, 2011 9:38 AM | Report abuse

claw:

I saw it.

I was simply referring to her statement "I try not to call someone else immoral (although I don't always succeed). I try to keep my judgment about morality to apply to myself."

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 4, 2011 9:55 AM | Report abuse

"Any one who didn't have the conceit that Sarah Palin would **** his brains out if he said Conservative Things on a message board would differ pretty greatly from Scott's view of morality."

There's a deep thought for you. Exhibit 9745 in DDAWD's ouevre de la haine et la betise.

Off to work.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 4, 2011 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Claw and Scott--12Bar said she'd been advised to have an abortion for serious medical reasons, had chosen not to, and had lived with the medical outcome. Are you saying you've had similar experiences? That's the walk she's been walking.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 4, 2011 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Yes, AllButCertain, we have had similar experiences (exactly why "which is more than you have" came off just a bit judgmental). I will reiterate that 12BarBlues is as vicious as JennOfArk, if not MORE SO given how subtle it is to have fooled even ScottC3.

You ladies complaining about the lack of assertive women posting here don't even know if I and/or RainForestRising are females.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 4, 2011 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Claw, if you've experienced medical problems as a result of refusing to have an abortion recommended by a doctor on medical grounds, I'm sorry. I'll also conclude you"re a female.

Posted by: AllButCertain | February 4, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company