Disqus - Latest Comments for Jazz

Re: Is Rahm Punking Right Wing Bloggers and Fox?

Jazz — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:17:00 -0000

He has supposedly admitted to it a number of times. Time Magazine references the event here:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,859...

Re: The inevitable 2009 top ten stories column

Jazz — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:11:41 -0000

Good question, CO. Not exactly sure how to parse a site specific search on that, though, since we don't have the full compliment of subject tags anymore. I should ask Tyrone about that. He might have a way to break it down.

Re: Rush Limbaugh Hospitalized in Hawaii

Jazz — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:51:24 -0000

That poem is downright ugly, but nothing unusual in today's climate I'm afraid. It only draws more attention, I think, because of this preconceived notion that the liberal / Democratic side of the aisle is the home of "compassion" etc. and the Republicans are all hateful death mongers or whatever.

Oh, and Stella absolutely rocks. Expensive as hell around here, though.

Re: Fox Could Be Blacked Out In Dispute

Jazz — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:45:08 -0000

The risk here is in confusing Fox News Network with the rest of Fox. If you happen to lean left, you may despise Fox News, but that's a different entity than their basic broadcast network, which carries football games and prime time show which have little or nothing to do with politics and are enjoyed by many people. I hope they resolve this.

Re: Quote of the Day: Obama Takes Republican Heat GOPers and Media Neglected to Direct at Bush on Similar Terrorism Incident

Jazz — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:29:14 -0000

This is one of those stories where normally I'd be arguing with DaMav, but not in this case. For the record, I didn't approve of the way we were handling the terrorism situation under GWB and was actually hoping for a new direction in that area under the new administration. But this story struck me as kind of crazy. I first heard about it on Twitter where Glenn Greenwald Steve Benen were both bitching about how Politico was acting as a "mouthpiece for Cheney" without asking questions and I referred them to this very post to show they were covering both sides of it.

But back to the narrative at hand, I don't think anyone was *applauding* the fact that it took Bush 8 days to respond to the shoe bomber and was on vacation at the time. I think the country was still pretty much in shock from 9/11 and then had another dose of shock dumped on top with the Reid story. But again... that's the WHOLE POINT. Bush and company didn't do a good job of that, but it was right after we had gotten woken up to the fact that we were seriously under attack. Eight years have gone by. Should we be getting a little better at it by now???

I think that's the point which makes this comparison rather weak. It's one thing to carp about something the Republicans did under Bush which got the approval of his own party if they then bitch about it when Obama does the same thing. But that doesn't apply here.

Re: Ban the Burqa? Not so fast…

Jazz — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:20:46 -0000

Sure, Hemm, I see what you're saying. But I was referring to the modern, post-9/11 era. You just don't see stories about any radical Israelis sneaking into our country and blowing stuff up, hitting the subways in London and Tokyo, etc. Even the actions of the Israelis against the Palestinians in the strip, while many people object to them, are actions of "the state" so to speak, and not the rogue actions of one individual or private group.

Re: Ban the Burqa? Not so fast…

Jazz — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:16:45 -0000

FuzzyFace, even though the conversation has fairly well played itself out overnight, your comment deserves at least one more attempt at clarification. When I spoke of the "risk" involved in criticizing Muslim practices vs. Jewish practices, I was referring to the *political* risk in offending conservative / Republican readers, voters, etc. and not the risk of physical violence from members of the offended faith. Given the way I phrased it in reference to Barbara's article and conservative punditry in general, I thought that was clear, but obviously I didn't make it clear enough since you read it the other way. I in no way meant to imply that there is some vast cabal of American Jews out there ready to perform honor killings of writers who criticize the Jewish faith or Israel the way there are Muslims ready to go after people like Rushdie, et. al and you are absolutely correct in that analogy, so I apologize for the confusion. There are many of these readers who also point (correctly) to the axiom that "not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all the terrorists are Muslims. (I say "correctly" with the provision that you limit your definition to international terrorism and not the domestic variety.) There is no parallel with Jewish terrorists, and in fact I can't even think of one off the top of my head.

But the fact remains that among conservative and Republican readers here in the United States, Muslims aren't exactly popular at the moment and publishing material which is critical of them in any way doesn't exactly send your readers into a frothing frenzy against you. Conversely, Republicans view themselves as the party which defends Israel and the Democrats as failing in that area. This tends to create a rather knee-jerk reaction from those same readers if you are critical of Israel, etc.or, by extension, any aspects of the Jewish faith in general.

Further, it is very likely true that I was ready to get my feathers ruffled as soon as you decided to label my critique as antisemitic, since I've run into it too many times. Our overly sensitized society is full of folks who are ready to throw red flags and go on the verbal war path at the slightest suggestion of a perceived slight, and as I writer I run into it frequently. If you write anything about problems with "inner city schools" you will easily find people who will interpret that as phrase as meaning "black" and immediately begin screaming "RAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!" even if the writer was only seeking to point out failings with the teachers union and our urban education system in general.

Likewise, if you question any of the policies of the nation of Israel (as I have done in the past) or, as in this case, even mention anything to do with practices within the Jewish faith, there are those who will immediately jump to the barricades and scream, "Antisemite! You're just blaming the JOOOOOOOS!"

After you hear that enough times, you get pretty tired of it. I hope that clears us up on your original objection.

And while we're touching on the honor killing subject, though this one came from somebody else, there have absolutely been cases of young people getting killed on some of those "Mormon" compounds if they didn't toe the line. It's well documented. And if it offends anyone that I referred to the polygamy minded followers of that sect as "Mormons," then I'm sorry, but that's what I've heard them call themselves in interviews and I don't know what other generic religious label they fit under.

Re: Ban the Burqa? Not so fast…

Jazz — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:39:03 -0000

Well, I've let left you all to run wild for a while and it's certainly been an enlightening conversation. Let's see if there are some shorter bullet points which at least most of us could agree upon.

1. There are people who are offended by a religious group forcing women to wear the burqa. There are women who willingly wear them even here in the USA because they accept it as part of their faith. (I know a couple here in New York, so if you can't agree to that, I suppose you don't need to stay in this conversation.)

2. There are people who are offended by certain aspects of the Jewish purity laws. There are others who willingly follow them.

3. There are people who are offended that the Catholic Church won't let women be priests and choose to convert to a Protestant faith in response. (Well documented.) Others are not bothered.

4. If you suggest that anyone might ever be offended by anything in any of the various sects of the Jewish faith, somebody will immediately suggest you are an antisemite who hates the JOOOOOOOS.

I can not find any instances of *federal* (emphasis important) laws against nudity. They all seem to be state and local, though fairly ubiquitous. There are federal laws against sex crimes which involve public nudity, but not against the lack of garb itself.

With this in mind, is it safe to assume that questions remain as to whether or not the federal government even has the authority to regulate the clothing people wear in the form of saying that nobody can wear a burqa in public, even if the woman in question chooses to do so as an aspect of how she follows her faith?

Re: Health Care Debate: Were Medicare Savings Counted Twice?

Jazz — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:57:42 -0000

I don't know what has made you so cynical as to think that spokespeople for the administration could have made a math error like that. I mean, these are the same people who put up the web site to track all of the jobs saved or created from the stimulus. And the newly elected representative from Maryland's 89th Congressional District assures me that the Medicare savings numbers are spot on.

Re: Republicans Still Hope to Defeat Health Care Reform As New Poll Shows Most Americans Oppose It

Jazz — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:30:23 -0000

Some of us seem to be, perhaps purposefully, ignoring the fact that the recent proposals about "younger people" buying into Medicare were talking about those who are 55+ or perhaps 50+ buying into the system earlier than they normally would. Trying to somehow conflate this to say that some large percentage of people want a single payer system covering everyone of every age is...

Well, you figure out the correct adjective there.

Re: GOP: Out of Gas, Out of Ideas, Over a Cliff

Jazz — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:03:07 -0000

I'm phoning the police. Who are you and what have you done with Rick Moran?

Re: The Franken – Lieberman Smackdown

Jazz — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:27:31 -0000

I will take one exception with what HemmD said:

"Making this anything more than tight time scheduling due to Republican delaying tactics is ridiculous."

There are one of two possibilities here. Either:
1. HemmD is aware of some sort of hidden clause in our Constitution which forbids the United States legislature from crafting any new laws after midnight, Dec. 25, 2009
or
2. Somebody else is being ridiculous.

This was not a filibuster. This was saying ten minutes and thirty seconds was unacceptable when ten minutes was ok. Three other Senators had already gotten an extra "moment' earlier that day by unanimous consent, two of them Democrats.

Re: Spiral Light Show. What the heck was it?

Jazz — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:10:35 -0000

Post updated. It was indeed a Russian missile, or so they are saying. Beats me how any rocket engine produces a light show like that, though, with that much symetry.

Re: The Sky’s the Limit on Debt Ceilings

Jazz — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:06:23 -0000

Did I mention either party? The GOP under Bush and their pre-2006 majority were also spending like drunken sailors (though not with quite the temerity we're seeing this year) and lots of us complained about it then. They're just carrying on a fine old tradition of Congress having no concept of limits to fiscal irresponsibility. But if you must, then yes... today the D's are the ones perched in the majority offices as well as the White House, so if they shoot the cap through the roof again, they take the hit for it this time.

Re: Spiral Light Show. What the heck was it?

Jazz — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:52:27 -0000

I didn't put this in the main article because I obviously have absolutely zero evidence or professional scientific background to support it, but you know what it looked like to me? The first thing that came to my mind was that it looks like what I imagine the initial formation of a black hole would look like if a star someplace out in our galaxy collapsed into one without the huge supernova which we generally assume precedes such an event. Like if a fairly massive star near the end of its life just collapsed into a smallish, single stellar mass black hole with the dust field around it beginning to spiral down into the event horizon. But as I said, see the disclaimers above. I have no expertise to base that on.

Re: The “Horror Story” That Wasn’t

Jazz — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:57:39 -0000

Everyone knows I'm not a fan of Malkin either, but this story not only seems valid and of interest, but also certainly had one quote which I think I'll be tucking away for future use as we debate the issues of the day.

"You are not being helpful."

Oh, man. We could wear that one out in roughly one day of the 24 hour news cycle beast around here.

Re: EPA Delays E-15 Fuel Ruling until 2010

Jazz — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:36:53 -0000

Actually, they are testing 2001 models and newer. It's covered in the linked article.

Re: Jesse Ventura: An American Treasure

Jazz — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:17:48 -0000

"Jazz, the OTHER CLOWN Ed's referring to is Al Franken, not Michele."

Gary, after all this time, did you REALLY not get that I was just poking Ed in the ribs a little there? I think everyone here knows by now that Ed is a friend of Bachmann's.

Re: Smear mayonnaise on conservatives!

Jazz — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:26:32 -0000

Thank you for that link! I'm not one of the anti-environmental warriors and actually do try to do eco-friendly things, but this article was hilarious. I was chuckling through the whole thing.

Re: Noted Scumbag to do Hard Time in … Swiss Chalet?

Jazz — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:21:40 -0000

I'm still wondering if the best thing would be spending the rest of his life in a cell with Bernie Madoff. After a few years of Bernie trying to sell him hedge fund shares, he'd probably just hang himself with a bed sheet.

Re: Of Phones, Phonies and Gadgets

Jazz — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:11:22 -0000

"I think I'll write a new app for the Iphone. It blanks the screen and makes absolutely no sound. I'll call it "Peace and Quite," I'll leave everybody a voice mail when it's available."

If you had that, I might just get a cell phone

Re: Bowing to the Hive Mentality

Jazz — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:37:39 -0000

I'd mostly agree with you except on one point. The bill in question really doesn't do much of anything in terms of changing things until after the 2012 elections. The costs which will rise will do so sooner, but not all that soon. (They're not idiots.) It will be mostly in 2011 when they start kicking in the way it's currently written. If they manage to pass this thing, it not only won't burn them too much in 2010, but might actually help the D's by giving the illusion that they're doing something. But most of that, on both sides, will fade by the 2012 elections. At that point,if unemployment is finally going down reliably and a sustainable recovery seems to be staggering to its feet, they may hold on to a majority in both houses (albeit slimmer) and Obama *should* cruise to a second term,even if Dem policies had little or nothing to do with the improvements. (Assuming the R's put up a real hard right winger against him.) But if the economy is still fumbling and unemployment remains over 8 or 8.5, Obama is a one-termer and the D majority in congress will be a distant memory. I'm afraid,in the end, it's all about people's comfort levels and the heated debates on wonkish policy don't really sink down very far into the minds of the vast majority of voters. If they are fat dumb and happy they'll keep what they have, at least until they get really bored. (See 2000) If they are worried about the rice levels in their bowls, it will be time to "throw the bums out" and the majority of bums currently have D's after their names.

Re: Return of the Election Beast from NY-23

Jazz — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:58:08 -0000

Agreed, Sammy. I didn't say you thought that. I simply mentioned that you quoted Hoffman so that people could go read your article.

Re: How not to lure us back to the “new” GOP

Jazz — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:19:22 -0000

Actually, upon further reflection, I should have noted that the motion still passed. Should probably update.

Re: Will There be a Vote on Health Care Tomorrow?

Jazz — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:47:50 -0000

I will at least give you credit for being hilarious, Steve.
"The republicans intentionally waited until after any possibility of a 72 hour period after a final bill was online before they submitted their version which they insisted be considered before a vote."

So the world ends on Saturday? Pelosi schedules the votes for all intents and purposes. If the Republican proposal came on Friday she could schedule it for Tuesday and the GOP couldn't stop her. Nice try,though. Very amusing.