Disqus - Latest Comments for domajot

Re: “I look forward to a day where Israeli and Palestinian children live in peace.”

domajot — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:52:52 -0000

ChrisWWW asked:
"What part of my view don't you agree with exactly? "

I dont't know if this was asked of me or of Holly, but here's my answer, anyway.

You've locked onto who you see as the guilty party in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and you seem to see it all :with cartoon like clarity: Snow White and the Wicked Witch. Instead, the situation is as mired in complexity as the history of the ME is long. Victims and victimizers tumble all over each other.

Obama presented the case that both Rev. Wright and his bigoted white grandmother have to be understood within the context of their expeirences and influences. Then we move on.
That's the only workable attitude, IMO. But it wouldn't work for Obama if he only understoon one of these two figures in his life and jettisoned the other.
The same is true in Palestine.

If I remember correctly, you're an Obama fan.
Why not learn from him?

Re: “I look forward to a day where Israeli and Palestinian children live in peace.”

domajot — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:53:26 -0000

While I don't agree with Holly's view, I don't agree with Chris or Loviatar, either.

It doesn't help to oversimplify or stereotype either the Israelis or the Palestinians.
The Palestinians are locked into their own internatl narrative and their self-identity as victims without responsibility. The tragedy of both is that they can't seem to honor the past without getting stuck in it.

As for bigotry, everyone always spots the bigotry aimed at you, while few bother to notice the bigotry emanating from you. That's an equal-opportunity shortcoming, all around.

Neither side seems to want peace now; they want revenge.

Blacks in the US began to advance when they adapted and decided to succeed inspite of injustice .

Re: “I look forward to a day where Israeli and Palestinian children live in peace.”

domajot — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:06:35 -0000

I listened to Mr. Aronson (first name forgotten),. an Israeli writer and intellectual, express a very gloomy view of the state of mind prevailing in Israel. According to him, Israelis are not able to internalize an identity other than that of a victim/warrior, the problem being that the warrior insists on fighting the same battles in the same way, even when the strategy is failing . His point, I think. was that hope has died and with it , the ability to look for a way out has died, as well.

If Mr. Aronson is on to something, then that is dangerous for Israel, indeed.
To survive, one must be able to adapt. To adapt, one must have enough imagination to envision new solutions, when the old methods fail.

Re: The Parties Loss are Moderates Gain?

domajot — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:59:17 -0000

This, along with a number of other changes in political strategies, seems to assume that a changed strategy will produce moderation. I don't know what I'm missing here, but I don't see why that assumption should be made.
How would an increase in the number of groups pouring money into politics produce moderation instead of just more competitive squabbling?

I can't help thinking there is a parallel here with grovernments that have a multi party system. They form unstable coalitions that, in turn, result in unstable governance. I don't see too much moderation in those countries.

Moderation is a state of mind, a culture, not something that can be engineered by adopitng this or that technique., and it can only prevail when a majjority values moderation as a positive necessity for the country's survival and/or progress.

I may be a lone voice in the wilderness, but I think equating speech with money is a cause of our problems, not the cure. To me, this is like returning to the age when only landed gentry or successful businessmen had a say. When funds raised represent influence, extremists have as much, if not more, of a chance to dictate policy, leaving the other groups competing with each other for attention in the dust.

Besides all that, the amount of money being poured into politics seems perverse when I think of all the social benefit that money could finance instead.

Time will tell how this will work out. I hope I'm wrong, and wonderful things will happen. As of now, I just don't see it, though.

Re: Spitzer begins therapy for possible sex addiction

domajot — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:37:46 -0000

I am really, really suspicious of the praciice of analyzing people and addiction from afar. It reminds too much of Sen. Frist and his 'patient' Terry Schiavo.

First of all, not being his therapist, I have no idea if his addiction led to self-destructive tendencies or vice versa.

Second, the famous entering therapy for one thing or another is rather a pattern of late.: 1) get caught, 2) start therapy. 3). is usually letting Jesus into their hearts, but that step is missing here.
Certainly it doesn't hurt the defense to show contrition (therapy) before judgment.

Sex, addiction, risky behavior are all complicated subjects and more complicated still is the process of trying to understand how they intertwine in an indvidual and with existing laws.

Just to add another twist to the story, surveys of women show that most can deal easier with a husband's infidelity with a prostitute that with his infidelity in a extramarital love affair (emphasis of 'love' here) What part do man-woman relationships play in sex addictions, then?

What part do our laws play in this?

It's much too complicated to settle by focusing on one person, Spitzer.

Re: Hillary’s Tall Tales at Tuzla - Is this the end?

domajot — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:24:20 -0000

There has been a lot of criticism of the use of a snippet from Wright's speech to characterize speeches in their totality. But that about Obama.

Now we have snippets of Hillary in Bosnia, and no doubts that they represent the tatality of her experience there. Oh, but his is Hillary, so that makes it different.

Denials that she played any significant role in Ireland were hailed as proof of Hillary's dupliciy. A statement to the contrary by the Irish PM garnered hardly a moment's attention.

This is just playing the same game over and over again. Embrace the headline; don't wait for the full story to unfold. Get your version out there; don't concern yourself if contrary evidence emerges later.

There is such shock when this game is played against people we like, but there is also such willingness to play the same game agaisnt people we dislike.

If Hillary lied, she will suffer the consequences.
If these snippets prove to be misleading, who will suffer the consequences?

I wasn't there. I don't know what happened in Bosnia. I sure as h--- won't base my judgment on more snippets.

Re: Spitzer’s Fall and America’s Archaic Laws About Sex …

domajot — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 19:04:14 -0000

Superdestroyer referred to "vulnerable women needing protection," and that's preicsely what criminalizing prostitution fails to provide.

Penalizing prostitues will not enhance their opportunities to further their education or to improve their opportunities to gain more savory employment..
Penalizing their customers only drives up the price and attracts the criminal elemnent wanting a share in the profits.

The real concerns (disease, trafficking, etc) can be addressed with regulations or llaws aimed at more narrow correlary practises.

If a connection is to be claimed between sexual fidelity in a marriage and honesty in governance , then some proof, or even mere correlation had better be provided.
How did FDR having a mistress affect his execution of prsidential powers?

Re: Dick Cheney’s Shrug

domajot — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:34:07 -0000

The gross error Cheney and Bush have made in executing the war (and so much else) , IMO, is the disdain they have shown for the people of the US, while allegedly acting in their interests.

It is correct to say that a governemnt can not rule by following popularity polls, but neither can it rule successfully over the long term by ignoring and antagonizing the citizenry. I would argue that even a dictatorrship could survive and thrive if the populace felt that their concerns and complaitnts were heard and seriously considered in the decison making of the rulers.

A shrug is the perfect symbol for this administration, and it's totally counterproductive. The best way to produce a backlash is to treat citizen concerns with disdain and antagonism.
The ultimate self interest of the US is its survival. It can't survive as a nation at war with itself, and a shrug is the best way to ensure that the internal wars will intensify. The best way to produce risky countermeasures is to disregard their underlying causes, or to call opponents un-American.

Certainly, trying to destroy the checks and balances cited in passionate defense of Cheney does not serve to optimize the survival chances of this republic.

.

Re: Spitzer’s Fall and America’s Archaic Laws About Sex …

domajot — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:41:14 -0000

Regardless of what someone's opinion is about prostitution from a moral standpoint, it is unfortuante, even detrimental, that we can't seem to learn anything from past experience, a significant such experience being prohibition..

As for alcohol and tobacco, so for prostituion, it seems only sensible to apply the ''legalize and regulate' rule of thumb. Yet, we constantly go back to square one with each new 'sin' that draws attention and is debated.

I suppose everyone does that, but I am wondering why conservatives ignore their expressed reliance on assessing the cost effectivess of policies when it comes to practices like prostitution. The cost of arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating prostitutes and their clients is enormour, yet it appears to be highly ineffective as a deterrent.
Likewise, I wonder what happened to relying on market forces instead of government intervention.

There is a horrible disconnect here between principles, experience and a pragmatic, common sense approach.

Re: Hillary Clinton’s Harrowing Trip To Bosnia

domajot — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 05:30:57 -0000

I have no idea what happened in Bosnia. It's possible Hillary is lying in her teeth. .

I do know that few of the 'informed comments' about this could come from people who have ever been in an area of armed strife. Having experienced WWII up close and personal, I can say with absolute certaintly that it is quite possible to be
kissing babies one monent and to run for cover the next.

Even in war, people have a tenacious will to create pockets of normalcy, like a church service or a concert. At age five, I was in a basement listening to a concert, and 20 minutes later the building was reduced to rubblle in an air raid.
Had there been a film camera on the spot, the 'proof' of conditions the film would show would depend on whether the filming occurred before or after the raid.

Re: Senator John McCain’s Verbal Gaffes

domajot — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 04:50:28 -0000

I'm very glad that McCain gets the curtesy of several explanations for his gaffes being considered with no outright, assured claims as to which is the correct one.

How nice it would be to see all candidates treated with such sensitivity.

Re: Are Bloggers Twisting Obama’s Words?

domajot — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:46:15 -0000

Paul,

I agree that an individual can insulatie himself from the hysteria on blogs and in the meida. The larger worry is, though, that those applying judicious judgment of their own are being outnumbered by those who do not. do so and are taken over by a cult mentality.

The herd can determine voting outcomes, when they are the majority.
It's hard for rational thinkers to sway the public, because logic and calm analysis simply lack the appeal of scandal, hate and emotionalism.
John Adams mistrusted the common man, and offensive as that may seem, I sometimes see his point. It's even worse, though, when the educated or sophisticated man becomes morally corrupt and can use his intelligence to persuade the common man.

Re: Plagiarism At The White House

domajot — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:04:18 -0000

Everything is more complex than it seems. Plagiarism, too, takes many different forms.

I wrote a poem while in college and was shocked to discover that a phrase in the first line was actually something I had read when in grade school. The context and intent were diffferent, but the words were the same sequence of words..

Re: Bill Clinton Strikes Again?

domajot — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:49:23 -0000

Providing context in defense of Obama has never been matched by providing contextt for either Clinton.
Hillary did not invent nasty politics; she is a survivor of it. That's context. What does one learn in the school of hard knocks?
Bill is a husband as well as a politician. It's quite possible, IMO, that he is driven by a feeling htat he owes Hillary for the pain he cuased her and the damage the Monica episode did to her political aspirations. That's context.

These are human beings we are assessing during the elction process.
None of them can escape the limitations and flaws of being such.

BTW, how is this different from Obama's praise of Republican success in producing ideas? Couldn't that be seen as a swipe at Hillary's 'old' politics?
I thought Hillary's criitcism of that was misguided , and I think seizing on every word Bill speaks is equally misguided.

Re: Are Bloggers Twisting Obama’s Words?

domajot — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:28:23 -0000

JMZ said: :"...those Fox folks have zero to do with blogs."

I don't see it that way. Blogs feed off the media, and , increasingly, the media pay attention to blogs. The cross breeding enhances hate and divisiveness.

.

Re: Bill Clinton Strikes Again?

domajot — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:15:05 -0000

Both Clintons, Obama and his wife and MCCain and his mother (remember her appearances?) are all actors in a political arena. What they say and do is necessarily and rightfully analyzed in that way.
The problem with analyses arises when they categorize politicians, separating the usual suspects (everything they do is suspect and/or malicious) from the honest brokers (everything they say and do is apolitical and ethically pure).

Re: Another Time, Another Firebrand Preacher

domajot — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:43:00 -0000

I have wondered also, how MLK and his movement would have fared in today's world of poisonous blogging and 'gotcha' politics. It was bad enough as it was, but my guess is that given today's circumstances, the violence would have been much, much worse. How would FOX News have covered the marches, and what would have been the response on the streets?

I note wiht sadness, almost despair, how every new technological advance is hailed as a promise and devolves into a disappointment. . TV was supposed to acvance information and education, but it became entertainment for dummies. The Internet is as much the dispenser of hate as of information.

It sure sems like the opportunities provided by what is new lose out to the exploitation of what is new to serve baser instincts.

Re: Are Bloggers Twisting Obama’s Words?

domajot — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:13:43 -0000

"Of course, then there is Bill Clinton. Are his comments really gaffes?"
---is a more subtle, and thus more insidious, way of doing word twisting and reality bending.

Except for a few outposts , true news analysis, the kindJoe refers to in the post, is pretty much dead. Every insinuation or accusation can pass for analysis these days, and the analysis itself then becomes the news story, while the original event or words being analyzed.fade away to non-existence.

If negative political ads erode rational thought, this trend in blogs is a thousand times more poisonous. At least ads can be seen for what they are, but blogs wear an unearned mantle of autheticity;. because these are citizens speaking, not the mistrusted media. Plus, they sound so auuthoritative.: Clinton did/said this because of this. There is not even a hint to suggest that this is an opinion, not journalistic reporting.

This does not bode well for the future. I wonder if future historians, writing about our times, will be susceptible to confusing analyses with actuality.

PS TO MARLOWECAN: I cited your words as an example of how the twisting can sometimes begin, not as an accusation that that's what you have done.

Re: Finally, some context for the Wright clips

domajot — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:28:43 -0000

CStanley said:
"chris www: my pleasure for the arguing ;-)
Apparently doma doesn't share your sentiment though."

I find neither pleasure nor dispeaseure in arguing with you. Rather, I feel increasing disenchantment with the practice of comment exchanges.
Years go by, and I see no sigh that anyone's thinking progresses. It's just ships passing in the night.
I find more pleasure in exchanging ideas with a group via e-mail. Having a limited, and thus more intimate, forum seems to produce a higher degree of listening and learning ability. I've actually altered my thinking in many waysdue to this group of divergent opinions.

So, why do I keep commenting? The only reason I can find is that exchanges on blogs sometimes provide material that I can bring to my groupwhere I am mor liable to actually learn something.

Re: Stuff A Lot Of People Like

domajot — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:58:41 -0000

The site makes sense when you remember how effective minority comedians have been in helping a larger audinece accept their race or ethnicity - first as entertainers and then overall.

Re: Finally, some context for the Wright clips

domajot — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:35:09 -0000

Apologies.
Please pretend that the last two paragrapsh of my comment aren't there.

I keep forgetting what's there after an insertion.

Re: Finally, some context for the Wright clips

domajot — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:23:49 -0000

CStanley-

First you were 'troubled' by what Wright didn't say, and now you're troubled by what Obama didn't do.

The disconnect here is, IMO, that none of this pertains to what actually can be accomplished by any one person in a specific situation. Ideals are necessary to set a direction, but pragmatism is necessary to make progress. Had Obama singlehandedly made war aginst the prevailing winds in Wright's generation , his career in Chicago would have been finished and there would be ino ntelligent voice addressing the sores in our society in a forward looking way.
To assess Obama as a leader, It would be more helpful to examine how Obama is different from Wright rather than get stuck on scouring the past for more deficiecies in either.

"Diplomacy is the art of seduction" is a line that sticks in my mind from the John Adams series on HBO. We've had too many confrontations and poltical wars, about race.(and about religion, too). It's time to stop looking for people to tar and feather and start listening and talking to them, instead.

A doctor has to understand what hurts the patient in order to prescribe the right cure. The same is true for a sick society.

Just like the Iraq war, the question before us now is: should we spend our time re-fighting yesterday's political and social battles or should we have a more honest , and open discussion about how to move forward? Getting stuck on finding who and what to blame in the past tends to preclude any forward thinking at all. Lincoln understood pragmatism. in his time. Why not learn from that expence , or whould we re-debate his decisions?

What Obama proposed in his speech was that we should spend more time listeneing and less time blaming individuals.

Re: Fox’s Chris Wallace Takes Fox And Friends ‘To Task’ For ‘Two Hours Of Obama Bashing’

domajot — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:29:45 -0000

Good for Wallace!
Is it possible that intelligent thought might one day replace the Lombaugh/Oberman style?

I founcd this to be rather telling about the FOX /media mentality:
"“I appreciate you respecting us enough to say it on camera as opposed to writing an email,” said Kilmeade sarcastically after hearing Wallace’s criticism"

In other words: we'll do all the public character assasination we want, but don't anyone dare make us look bad in the same public's eyes.

Re: Finally, some context for the Wright clips

domajot — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:20:44 -0000

Cstanley said:
"....yet I haven't seen him say the same about forgiving for Tuskegee, slavery, or any other (very valid) grievance that blacks have against whites in America...."

This is veering off into ever widening circles getting further and further away from Obama, the candidate. Now we are criticizing Wright not only for what he said but for what he didn't say.

Context includes considering the point in history that someone represents. Wright is speaking from the perspective and experiences of his particular lifeitme, probably the most tumultuous in black history in America, They were particularly tumultuous because tthey encompassed both fresh hope and tremendous disappointment. He can't be expected to also speak for the future. He can only place hope in the future, as he did with his repeated 'governments change' phrase.

But Wright is not a candidate; Obama is.
Obama is of a new generation, His own history necessitates reconciling both his white and his black ancestry. In all this frenzy about Wright's place in Obama's life, it's amazing how little curiosity there is about his racist (some would say) grandmother.

I shudder when I hear the phrase 'thologically sound' without indication as to whose theology we are talking about. All religious groupings are theologically sound within the confines of their own primary assumptions. There are great dvergences regarding which assumptions should be primary, however, when considering a particular issue.

Re: Finally, some context for the Wright clips

domajot — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:07:47 -0000

Thank you, Elrod, for context, a very unpopular part of communications these days.

Hopelessly, I sent off e-mails to all the news channelds urging them tocover this context, but I know that context takes time. In the time it takes to report context and background information, you can play the excerpt many times over, whip, whip up the emotions of the vewership and increase ratings.

Damozel is right about Hillary. Obama supporters like I rushed in to try provide some context to depictions of Rev. Wright. Hillary has always been and remains a caricature, not a human being made of flesh and blood.. Not much context there.

Obama opened the door to the possibiliy of stopping the madness, the crazy cycle of attacks and counter attacks, Few are willing to walk through the door.
Instead, We still define ourselves by who and what we hate, not by what we love.

And patriotism is still a lapel pin.