Farhad, was wondering if you could give me your take on what Fred has to say on Gaza. He's one of my favorite columnists and usually nails things pretty good.

Elder's column on this non-issue:

http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2009/01/01/obama_the_magic_negro-gate

Context restored! Here's a full article on the subject:

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/27/is_nothin_too_trivial_for_the_busybodies

And in that context, I believe the question is valid. Are sexy nurses making women avoid the nursing profession? Dumb, dumb, dumb. There are also sexy teachers, sexy secretaries, sexy baby-sitters, etc. It's not the professions that are sexualized, it's the women. And fat chance of stopping that.

CaptWillard!

... ever entertain the thought of a career as an opinion columnist?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/opinion/16rich.html

agreed rougy.
the man is editor of PNAC,and an op-ed columnist for the NYT,he has been wrong on..well..EVERYTHING.
why do they give this man airtime at all?
he is on FOX every sunday,and STILL insists that the neo-conservative (i.e;PNAC)
is the correct foreign policy agenda to adhere to,even though it has become,not only an embarrassment,but also an epic FAIL.
i would not too much credence in what this espouses.

is this a joke? "A Tradegy pulled us together, oh wait, the government screwed it up, and now we are infighting over how mismanaged the 'response' was.

But what would work real well, is something to bring us together...

Like Katrina? Oh wait, government fucked up that too, as resources were elsewhere fighting the war the US public largely opposed, so that was not 'bringing people together' either

How many disasters must it take before the Bush government realised its job was to unite people in times like this, instead of ignoring public opinion and doing as they wanted.

This chump was good with the observation, people come together in the face of adversity. But to say, hey! we need that again. Just for that...this columnist gets my 'Ass of the Year' award.

Well done.

"Jeff Cohen is a writer, lecturer and media critic who founded the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) in 1986. Jeff is the author of the book "Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media." He was an on-air commentator (and Donahue senior producer) at MSNBC in 2002/2003; a weekly News Watch panelist on Fox News Channel from 1997 to 2002: a co-host of CNN's Crossfire in 1996. His columns have been published in dozens of dailies, including USA Today, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Newsday, and Atlanta Constitution. He was a regular columnist at Brill's Content. In the mid-1990s, he co-wrote the nationally syndicated Media Beat column (with Norman Solomon, author and media critic). In 2003, he was the communications director of the Kucinich for President campaign." Link Page

"Following the Palin acceptance speech New York Times columnist Frank Rich elucidated the political significance of quoting Pegler.

Mr. Rich noted that "Pegler was a rabid Joe McCarthyite who loathed F.D.R. and Ike and tirelessly advanced the theory that American Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe ("geese", he called them) were all likely Communists."[6]

He pointed out that Palin's use of a quote from "once powerful right-wing Hearst columnist Westbrook Pegler" was intended to send a subtle but unmistakable signal to far right wing supporters."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westbrook_Pegler


Interesting argument, though I don't think Palin has too much in common with the hate-filled breed of fundamentalists.

The sheer absurdity of a political columnist claiming to not know what the Bush doctrine is just... shit, I can't even think of a word for it! Claiming to not know makes him look like an idiot, a liar, or to many of us, both. What is the upside?

Try this you lying moron, "Sure, I know what the Bush Doctrine is, but I have been writing political columns since 1984 for the Wall Street fucking Journal! I am expected to know. Hell, I even know that Bush broadened its scope in his 2005 inauguration speech to include supporting democratic movements worldwide (how can you state this in an interview in which you claim not to know what the Bush Doctrine is!?!). Understanding policy positions ascribed to the Bush Doctrine are not a prerequisite for governing a small town in Alaska, or even the entire state."

Russell Edward Brand (born June 4, 1975) is an English comedian, actor, columnist and presenter of radio and television
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brand

(for those too busy to follow the FactCheck.org link, here's the quote;

"Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.

The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to "dig into her record and background." The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to "dig dirt.""

ESPN Columnist Jim Caple chronicled his adventure when he got to participate in this a couple years ago: part 1, part 2.
It’s a good read.
oh, and *promote, 'cause I've always wanted to try this with the Mrs.

Guess whose wrong.

There is a interesting post by Kevin Drum:

END OF AN ERA?....David Frum is pretty pessimistic about the current state of movement conservatism, but George Packer says that David Brooks is even more dejected:

When I met David Brooks in Washington, he was even more scathing than Frum. Brooks had moved through every important conservative publication — National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard — "and now I feel estranged," he said. "I just don't feel it's exciting, I don't feel it's true, fundamentally true." In the eighties, when he was a young movement journalist, the attacks on regulation and the Soviet Union seemed "true." Now most conservatives seem incapable of even acknowledging the central issues of our moment: wage stagnation, inequality, health care, global warming. They are stuck in the past, in the dogma of limited government. Perhaps for that reason, Brooks left movement journalism and, in 2003, became a moderately conservative columnist for the Times. "American conservatives had one defeat, in 2006, but it wasn't a big one," he said. "The big defeat is probably coming, and then the thinking will happen. I have not yet seen the major think tanks reorient themselves, and I don't know if they can." He added, "You go to Capitol Hill — Republican senators know they're fucked. They have that sense. But they don't know what to do. There's a hunger for new policy ideas."

The great liberal wave that lasted from the 30s through the 70s was fundamentally based on three things: middle class wage growth, the construction of a social safety net, and the individual rights revolution. Its other pathologies aside, liberalism's big problem by the end of the 70s was that it had essentially won most of these battles. Not all of them. No movement ever wins all its battles. But once you win two-thirds of them, it's hard to sustain the kind of momentum it takes to win the rest.

Conservatives are in the same boat today, except worse. Modern movement conservatism was also fundamentally based on three things: low taxes, anti-communism, and social traditionalism. ("Small government" was never more than a fig leaf.) Today communism is gone (and Islamofascism has failed to rally the troops in the same way), taxes literally can't be lowered any more, and sex-and-gender fundamentalism has become an albatross that's rapidly producing a generation of young voters more repelled by conservatism than any generation since World War II. Even in the late 70s, there were still plenty of traditionally liberal goals still to be fought for. Not enough to build a winning coalition around, but still something. Modern conservatives don't even have that. The culture war is pretty much all they have left, and its clock has run out.

They won't be willing to say this during a presidential campaign, but there are at least half a dozen smart Republican senators who understand this and don't really want to go down with the ship. So even if Democrats don't win a filibuster-proof majority in November — as they almost certainly won't — it's likely that there will still be enough survival-inspired GOP senators around to give Barack Obama the votes he needs to make a difference. If that's the case, and if Obama has the courage of his convictions, his first two years could be historic.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

first thing, and i'm being sincere here, shroom.

So am I! I like the new pic.

could you go back through your post, and wherever you see the word liberal, could you state whether it's social liberal, or fiscal liberal, that you're referring to?

I can't seriously believe you don't know the common definition of a liberal: fiscally reckless and socially liberal (aka nuts). No one knows what 'classical liberalism' is except you, me, and Ron Paul.

"Social liberal" is a dangerously vague term. Ending Drug Prohibition could be considered socially liberal, but so could something absolutely insane, like open borders, and there's all sorts of wiggle room for questionable things like affirmative action (as a libertarian, you'd oppose it). Wouldn't "conservatarian" explain what you're saying you represent, a la fiscally conservative and socially (more) liberal? Your conservative side? You don't have to "prove" anything, I'm jess sayin' I'm not seein' it, and that's fine.

srsly. i've mentioned i don't know how many times, to you, that this is why i'm a libertarian, not a democrat. and yet you persist in treating anyone either socially or fiscally the same, when they actually have nothing to do with each other.

Do you really expect me to go down the list and fine tune each post so that every sifter of the many, many who oppose my POV feels good about it? For that personal touch, anyone who wants to discuss things more in depth is free to visit, as you have.

I used to be a libertarian and I've kept what I liked about it. Don't know if you've noticed, but generally Americans don't care about large-L Libertarians (or much of what any 3rd party says) or many small-L libertarian ideas. While I was a card-carrying Libertarian, I figured if any LP idea suddenly sounded good to the American population (ending Drug Prohibition, getting rid of IRS) one of the two major parties would steal it and claim it as their own. If I had my druthers (whatever they are) the two major parties would be Libertarian and Republican, but that's another rant.

and you can just call ppl by their fuckin' names, dude.
we all know what obama's middle name is. can't think of any reason anyone should give a shit.

Well, obviously YOU care!

my middle name's paul. do you care?

A-Ha! Do you know what Ron Paul's LAST NAME is? That's right. PAUL! It's all so clear to me now!

Yeah, I'm joking.

we all know who the president of iran is. just grow up, use ppl's fuckin' names? only you and jay leno think that shit's funny, and namecalling is essentially an ad hom attack as well.

Well, if for some reason Bush 43's middle name resembled "Hitler", you don't think the looney lefties would use that against him? Newsflash: for 8 years they've called him Hitler anyway, and a whole slew of unprintables, and the so-called "unbiased" mainstream media (long may they die) fuels it.

yeah. even worse when it's about something they didn't even get to choose - their name. should i really have to explain shit this silly, to you?

No, but here's what you should explain to me, why as a libertarian, you give a damn about hurting the feelings of a Jewicidal iranian tyrant, or saddam or dildo chavez, now in the process of starving his country with price controls. I mean, is that really what keeps you up at night? Name games with B. Hussein Obama? (he can legally change his name, if he wishes). How about O-Bam's disastrous tax-raising schemes or his frightening level of naivety in dealing in world affairs? As a fiscally-conservative libertarian, you should be terrified of this guy, and the broad.

>> anytime you'd like to address your original false accusations,
>> instead of burying them in new ones, you let me know.

> I'm not sure what the "false" accusations are as they have yet to be challenged.

oh come on, man! i make direct challenges all the time.
start with my rebuttal on the obama clip, where i said:
"how about quoting us a line from this, shroom..."

You have to understand the subtle dynamic at work with the Obama speech. On the surface it sounds like he's appealing to reason; what he's really doing is slipping in digs at Whitey, (including his own grandmother) knowing Whitey has no equal time forum to respond. That's what I hate about liberals and "race talk", it's not really a "dialogue" they seek, just more chances to blame others for their problems. As you claim to be a libertarian, I don't know why you're quick to defend someone advocating the OPPOSITE of personal responsibility and more Big Government "solutions".

and on the freeway protest clip, i listed many direct challenges.
you ignored them, and went off on some jim crow horseshit.

Oh, that. Well, my point was, if the original charge was 'gerrymandering' then so what, both parties do it and is it really something to be upset about? If one were a bona fide member of a 3rd party I could see it being offensive, but otherwise... srsly, if two thieves take turns robbing your house why only get upset (outraged) at one of them?

The response I got moved beyond that to accusations of (surprise) racism, always with the racism. So my Final Answer in essence was, why bother? Every time a group of 3 or more Black folks get pissed because they can't have their way they cry "Slavery!" and pretend it's the Jim Crow South all over again, as if there'd been NO progress or things made right by Whites since the Civil War. It's an insult to the intelligence of anyone White or Black to play these kinds of games; they trivialize the real Civil Rights movement, which acheived its goals decades ago.

You casually wrote off all of the great things Republicans have done for Black Americans because they happened before last week...if you won't acknowledge which party freed the slaves, then accept the other party is the one that tried to keep them slaves, and ironically, continues to do so today, only the chains are mental.

As per the gerrymandering post (which only has 19 votes) is it of great importance to you that the Dems are the ones running 'a Black Guy'? As the Dems like to claim, Black conservatives "aren't really Black." It's shameful that any party is so race and gender obsessed, even tho it helps my side.


and calling the site "liberalsift"? if it's too "liberal" for you, gtfo. srsly. i wouldn't dream of going to any site, that had a more conservative viewership, and then blame them for wanting to talk openly.

I'm the only conservative that pipes up around here, and from time to time I've expressed gratitude for being able to do so. When I was banned a few folks who don't like me also welcomed my return. And while I believe you wouldn't go to townhall.com and attack the columnists there, many liberals and libertarians do. I'm sure there are conservative hawks who post at Daily Kos. So really, who's blaming whom? I don't want people to not post because they disagree with me, and let's face it, most do. Bush is unpopular, the war is unpopular, but popularity is not what it's about.

I'M not blaming anyone for posting as they do, or for posting what they want, even if they're not creative enough to go past Olbyloon's latest Countdown To No Ratings rant.

When I like a sift, I upvote it on its merit, even if I disagree 100% with the submitter.

whoopdee-fuckin-doo.

I didn't explain these points to gain sympathy any more than you want your posts treated with kid gloves. I'm just letting you know that I know what's going on. I think the challenge is that "angry knee-jerk reactions" is where a lot of these sifters start with their cockamamie sifts, and then expect a full discourse on American History they never learned to justify any possible opposing point of view.

The old joke goes, "Liberals welcome all points of view, until to their horror they discover there are other points of view."

Do you think posting a video of "angry" Black people marching in one kollij in one state is supposed to make the world tremble and viewers believe anything they say just because they're "angry"? I'll bet 90% of those doofs marching had no idea what they were matching for, they were marching because their friends were marching, or to meet girls, or worse yet, because Professor Marx offered credit to anyone who went. I don't have to know every little detail, I know enough about human nature.

> the sifts I submit are apolitical 98% of the time.

i would upvote honest, socially- or fiscally-conservative sifts. shit, dude. i'd welcome fiscally conservative ones with open fuckin' arms. saw plenty of good ones while ron paul was setting fundraising records.

Apolitical.

but not o'reilly, dude. c'mon. he's an embarrassment. look at the work of conservative intellectuals like margolis, and tell me you can't see the difference.

O'Reilly is current. What liberal is going to read margolis (or download her picture)?

Actually, people bagging on O'Reilly have posted more of his clips than I have.

now, since you mentioned snacks, it just so happens i have some ben & jerry's in the freezer. so i'm going to update my bio pic now...

I was about to recommend Colbert's Americone Dream but I see you've found it. Happy snacking!

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:

first thing, and i'm being sincere here, shroom.
could you go back through your post, and wherever you see the word liberal, could you state whether it's social liberal, or fiscal liberal, that you're referring to?

Of course, something to note here is that Salisbury has since been fired by ESPN [source: USA Today]. Rumor is that this incident contributed to it, as well as other incidents which have not been substantiated but range from sexual harassment to worse offenses, depending on which sports rumor site you read.