Disqus - Latest Comments for Jazz

Re: A Pox on both their houses… Again

SmoothJazz0204 — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:22:08 -0000

Wow, I see I touched a nerve. The mere mention of Gov Palin draws a visceral reaction I see:

To Jazz: I never said her appearance on Oprah will decide the next election; Please do not put words in my mouth. Your contention that Reps will reject Gov Palin and that her base represents the "Far Right" is conjecture to be sure. Anyone who has thousands of people waiting overnight in biting cold to see them gets at emotions that's difficult to assess at this point. Blow her off as the candidate for only kooks at your peril. You never know what the country's "mood" will be like in 2 years and whether the country will react by reaching out to the next "new" phenomena - ie a "woman" with small town, "fly over country" appeal.

To DDuck: Sorry your claim that you are a "Rightie" who suggests Gov Palin should stay home doesn't cut it with me. Anybody could claim anything on an anonymous forum. For all I know, you could be a far left poster who believes Huffington Post has all the answers.

To Archangel: With all due respect, I never attacked anyone. The poster Jazz Shaw suggested that Gov Palin only appeals to the far right. That is speculation and conjecture at this point and I let him know. His comment that Repubs would turn away from her is a "hope" not based on any facts or evidence. Her favorables have risen in all surveys to the 45% - 50% range, and it is premature for The Moderate Voice or any other site, to tell its readers that Repubs will turn her away and that her appeal is limited to a bunch of wingnuts. The country will decide that over time, not a bunch of bloggers with a pre conceived mindset.

Re: A Pox on both their houses… Again

archangel — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:45:20 -0000

hi there Jazz, you are correct in your specs. You must have xray vision

Re: A Pox on both their houses… Again

DaMav — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:36:09 -0000

I had no idea the hard right made up 40 something percent of the country.

"Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama: The approval gap silently shrinks to a few points"
from the hard right mouthpiece 'The LA Times'
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009...

Obama 48% Palin 42% Other/Undecided 10%
That's from July 2009 @ evil Rasmussen. And of course Obama had not gotten that big 'health
care bounce' yet, right?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/...

Certainly it's early and nobody in their right mind would seriously predict a winner in 2012. But the attempt to marginalize Sarah Palin as some kind of splinter candidate confined to the far right doesn't really match reality.

Re: A Pox on both their houses… Again

Jazz — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:22:40 -0000

Wow. I really do have to wonder... do the Palinistas have a squad of people who monitor Google and are sent out to every single post where the name "Palin" or, in this case, "Palins" is invoked to rise up on their back legs and howl? Trust me... for most of us who follow these things from a more distant perspective, Palin has a sizable and vocal base to be sure, but it's entirely on the hard right. But if you think an Oprah guest appearance will decide the next election, you go with that. Let us know how it works out for you.

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: Rush Limbaugh Hospitalized in Hawaii

spirasol — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:54:28 -0000

six moments ago, spare a few, they called your last post ugly and uninformed......such as it as we get to know each other. I supported you, you abandon me. Sure Jazz, sorry to be off key.............

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

JeffersonDavis — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:25:35 -0000

You're right, Jazz.

Liberals hate FOX, until they find out American Idol is included in that blackout.

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

DaMav — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:10:31 -0000

normally I'd be arguing with DaMav

Aha!
The rumours that my picture was pasted on the dartboard in the spacious TMV staff lounge are true!

:-)

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…

FuzzyFace — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:09:38 -0000

"I was referring to the *political* risk in offending conservative / Republican readers, voters, etc."

which suggests that liberals and Democrats see nothing offensive in antisemitic comments; and perhaps you can point to American politicians who have been voted out of office as a result of reasonable questioning of Israeli policies (where "reasonable" means the kinds of questioning applied to other nations).

"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!'"

And there are also those who excuse any actual antisemitism by making the claim that *any* criticism of Israel is so-labeled. In my experience, the vast majority of such criticisms *are* antisemitic, as they hold Israel to a different standard than any other nation. I would be interested if you could point to claims of antisemitism in the case of informed questioning of Jewish practices.

That's not to say that I don't recognize that false accusations of racism are made - but it doesn't excuse gratuitous rants against Judaism that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and it doesn't excuse claims of mythical Jewish influence.

Re: Ban the Burqa? Not so fast…

HemmD — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:03:09 -0000

jazz
onje last point.

"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."

State sponsored terrorism is still terrorism. Hitler is the obvious example, but so are our wars Iraq and Afghanistan. Our response to Kadafi's terrorism was to blow up part of his family. Rouge actions are merely our excuse for justifying our own terrorist acts.

Re: Ban the Burqa? Not so fast…

HemmD — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:52:13 -0000

jazz
"But I was referring to the modern, post-9/11 era. You just don't see stories about any radical Israelis..."

i suggest you ask the Palestinians if they believe Israel uses terrorism in Gaza when they throw bombs from planes instead of roof tops.

The more general point I'm making is this. Would this entire thread have been produced if the discussion had been if Nuns should be allowed to wear habits or priests wear backwards collars? I just believe too many people change their cognitive analysis based upon whose ox is being gored.

Of course such a thread would have produced calls for government to get out of religious matters, but the comments would have been uniform in condemnation. We have a real problem with our subjectivity over-riding our objectivity. We see it in religion and politics alike, and everybody is all too aware of the failings of the "unbelievers."

The photo id argument I made seems reasonable, the photo is for identification. It's also to draw similarities between this and the prosecutions of fundamentalists who refuse to allow their children medical treatment as prayer is all they need. People are free to practice religion largely as they wish in the US, but some things are considered unacceptable within our system of laws. I, for one, lean toward fewer laws, but legal subjectivity has many times overrode that logic. Why can minors get wine in church for religious rites but Southwest American Indians NOT use Peyote in their ceremonies? The reason is simple, our view points are subjectively skewed against the unfamiliar.

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…

HemmD — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:07:33 -0000

jazz
just one point of clarification,
"There is no parallel with Jewish terrorists, and in fact I can't even think of one off the top of my head."

I assume you have forgotten the early history of the modern day state of Israel. The British would argue that many of the religious zealots of Palestine were every bit terrorists. This fits right in with the general tenor of this piece. People in power - (thanks Prof) always see the oppressed who fight that power base as terrorists.

The American Indian and the American colonist who rebelled against their lawful King were both guilty of what we call terrorism today. Subjectivity is a major part of terrorism, in politics as well as religion.

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…

JeffersonDavis — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:48:30 -0000

"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."

Hate to be the 400 pound gorilla in the room, but.....Protestants don't allow it either, or at least they're not "supposed" to. Rules of leadership are quite explicit in the New Testament.

Re: Ban the Burqa? Not so fast…

FuzzyFace — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:22:12 -0000

As I have now pointed out twice, the antisemitism is not in suggestions that anyone might be offended at Jewish practices. In fact, non religious Jews are probably more overt in their claims of offense than anyone else. The problem is in your claim that doing so is politically risky, while there is no risk in bashing Islamic practices.

But I would certainly agree with your last point - even if banning the burqa in public were attempted as a matter of federal policy, it would hinge on the government demonstrating an overriding public interest. That's rather the point under discussion here.

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

GeorgeSorwell — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:13:38 -0000

Jazz--

I'm not really sure how to respond to this.

I'm the guy who brought up single payer, so I assume you're talking about me, even though you refused to name anyone. And though I'm not sure what "correct adjective" you're hiding behind those three dots, I am sure it's intended to be an insult.

I can only say--and I think this is obvious--there is no bad faith in any of my comments here. So I decline to get into any kind of pointless argument about this.

Happy holidays to you.

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?