Disqus - Latest Comments for pacatrue

Re: Terrorist Trials in the Big Apple

pacatrue — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:37:54 -0000

If he were stunningly acquitted, where would he go? He's not going to be taken by any country in the world and would end up in "detention" -- with heavily armed military guards.

To answer the good "consistency" question, I am guessing they think they can convict KSM without bringing in any state secrets, while they do not think so with other prisoners.

Re: Absent from Berlin, Obama Misses Grand Opportunity: Le Figaro, France

pacatrue — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:40:03 -0000

Really? Everyone I know, who are 80% progressive, think this is great. The Velvet Revolution is held up as a people power moment by liberals all over the place. I'm sure there are some partisans who downplay Reagan's role, as there are partisans who play it up, but the role he did have was indeed one of his great accomplishments.

I really see no evidence for your assertion that liberals/progressives liked the Berlin Wall.

Re: Afghan Flypaper

pacatrue — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:27:46 -0000

I like the essay overall, but, since it's always easier to criticize... we can't say that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are able to freely slip around where they will. It seems that they are instead stuck in the mountains of Northwest Pakistan and Southern Afghanistan. Their ability seems compromised at a minimum with most of their efforts being focused almost exclusively upon hiding instead of orchestrating attacks in remote locations, though they are possibly orchestrating some of the resistance in those two places.

Re: How the Tea Partiers Enhance the Crist – Rubio Battle

pacatrue — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:07:57 -0000

The 2008 election doesn't bode well for Rubio. If I remember correctly, it was the Republican voters of Florida who gave the huge boost to McCain over the other (mostly) more conservative candidates.

Re: TMV blogger wins race, may be first to go from blogging to political office

pacatrue — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:27:03 -0000

Congrats indeed, Jill. So THAT'S where you've been.

Re: “V” for Villification: Liberal Paradise, Obama Nightmare (Guest Voice)

pacatrue — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:58:07 -0000

<quote>Could it be that the outward, and unintentional parallels with Obamamania is discomfiting some on the left because the parallels to Hitler’s Germany – so obvious, so easily seen – hold implications for the ease with which many of them succumbed to the siren song being sung by the president? Not that Obama is a fascist in any way, but is Chait really upset because he and his fellow leftists might, under other circumstances and with another candidate less dedicated to constitutional order, have fallen into supporting a real fascist?<quote>

Uh no. Or, my more honest reaction: @#$%@^?

Re: Time to Stop Deciding Who “Won”

pacatrue — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:17:57 -0000

I think nedlips is exactly right.

Re: So Much For Any Chance of Bipartisan Comprise

pacatrue — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:11:47 -0000

Actually, I think just as troubling as the Steele quote is the way the reporter wrote it up: Coming after you for supporting Obama (on stimulus and health care). That's what everything is about for most politicians and their bases. Supporting person X or destroying person X. You would think that the health care of millions of Americans and hundreds of billions of spending would be worth this sort of rhetoric. But all of that is far less important than taking down your political opponent.

Re: Political Compass

pacatrue — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:54:25 -0000

Well, I was someone who looked at the questions and balked. At least on the party affiliation one. Would I increase, maintain, or decrease regulation to what purpose? What's the goal? What sort of regulation in particular? So I left it.

I've done the compass one before and like many here, I come out as fairly left on social issues and middle of the road to the economic stuff.

Re: Obama Seeks Nobel Prize ‘Deadline’ for START III Treaty: Kommersant, Russia

pacatrue — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:47:55 -0000

Obama's stance on nuclear disarmament is old. In his short time as a Senator, he worked on this issue and he has made his disarmament goal clear in speeches, such as to the UN.

I really don't fear Norwegian prize committee's influence on the U.S. If a President were to get a reward from Israel as a defender of its country and tried to finish an agreement that he/she had been working on for months or years before the prize was given, would people be upset?

Re: Iran’s Reversal: Why Isn’t This Story Getting More Play?

pacatrue — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:15:16 -0000

EU bad. UN bad. Only U.S. good.

Anyway, I agree with Austin's original comment: No one expect Iran to actually agree to anything. When they truly follow through with a promise, that'll be news.

The bigger story on this might not be the Iranian oligarchy reneging, but the fact that the Iranian negotiators don't appear to actually have sufficient power to negotiate. If the deals they cut are ignored, it will become worthless to negotiate with them. It's similar to the trouble that U.S. administrations have on many trade deals. The executive negotiates, but the legislature decides. Makes it harder to negotiate with us.

Re: Obama Seeks Nobel Prize ‘Deadline’ for START III Treaty: Kommersant, Russia

pacatrue — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:08:11 -0000

As dagoat says, there's no evidence that this is in fact true.

At the same time, I believe one of the purposes of giving Obama the peace prize was to push him on treaties like this. If the Peace Prize does motivate him to prioritize nuclear arms reduction, I have no problem with that, assuming they do due diligence on the treaty itself.

Re: Obama “Thesis” Controversy a Hoax: Limbaugh Gets “Punked”

pacatrue — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:01:28 -0000

Thought I'd stop by for one last comment on this. You seem to be presenting Limbaugh here as a sort of culture critic who says outrageous thing about race in order to point out societal qualms. I could disagree with this in several ways, but here's one that might be most pointed.

You mentioned earlier that you don't use the sort of language that Limbaugh does. My question is why. Here's why I think you don't do so: You are a kind, intelligent person who tries to treat others with respect unless they deserve less, and you've shown no evidence of being racially prejudiced.

But if your critique of Limbaugh is correct, shouldn't you be talking more like him? If doing so is sort of a way to satirize society, then conservative criticism is stronger the more it uses the sort of racial language he does.

In my opinion then, the absence of you calling Obama "boy" and "magic Negro" is not because you lack Limbaugh's courage or cultural wit, but because you are a better person.

Re: Obama “Thesis” Controversy a Hoax: Limbaugh Gets “Punked”

pacatrue — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:13:55 -0000

I should add one more bit, because this might be the most important place of miscommunication between the two of us. You said (trying to use quote tags for first time ever).

<quote>What I'm trying to say about Limbaugh is that I agree to the extent that he uses provocative terms, deliberately. But you're larger point that this must mean he wants to insert racial bigotry (presumably you're saying this is because he is a bigot) is incorrect, IMO.</quote>

I am not really saying this latter thing. He might be doing it to some extent intentionally, because, as I think we agree, he likes to couch things in the most provocative way possible, even if it's essentially racist, to get ratings. That it works says interesting things about his audience.

More importantly, I believe he is using racially motivated terminology because he has a hard time not seeing Obama as black.

I should clarify what I mean by that sentence. I'm in a language-related field in Hawaii. This means that there are a majority women and majority Asian population in my program. Every once in a while, like twice a year, I will suddenly realize, "hey! I'm the only man in this room! or, hey, I'm the only white person in this room." Then I forget again to think about our gender and ethnicity, because we are all just researchers in a meeting. Hey, I just remembered you are a woman, but until I thought of it this instant, I was just writing as two people on a political blog.

Rush has a lot more difficulty just seeing a President. He keeps seeing a black man. And so when he hears a story of a white kid getting beat up on a bus by some black kids, Obama comes to mind. There's no connection between the incident and the President of the United States, but, well, Obama's black, so it pops in there. And when he's making up qualities to describe Obama, he frequently draws on ones that have long racial histories.

Re: Obama “Thesis” Controversy a Hoax: Limbaugh Gets “Punked”

pacatrue — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:58:44 -0000

Well, generally speaking, I'm a fan, CStanley. Even though we often disagree I read almost every comment you write. I cannot say that for others.

Meanwhile, my point is not in what people will say but what is real. If Limbaugh were to say, "the U.S. government should not be involved in the health insurance industry," and people called him racist because of that, then there's nothing you can do, because the comment was not in fact racist.

The motivation could be racist or not. Assuming the reason he opposes health care has to do with a view of the constitution, deficits, ideas of role of government, i.e., something un-related to race, then nothing about the comment is race-related. If the reason he hates government involvement in health care is because he doesn't want money going to those lazy colored people (a comment I've heard), then the comment wasn't racist, though the underlying motivation is. What I'm trying to say in this paragraph is that I'm not a relativist like conservatives (sorry, couldn't resist a good-natured jab) and believe in facts. One can't use "well, people will still call comments racist when it's not true" to argue that he didn't in fact make racist comments. People can say lots of things and be incorrect. His comments can be racist or not whatever people say about them. (There are limits to this idea since it's communication and I will be happy to discuss them if people want. I'm finishing a doctorate in linguistics and so have more to say on that than anyone wants to hear.)

I also don't buy the "I wish liberals wouldn't take the bait and waste time on this argument" when conservatives are taking the bait just as well in taking the time to criticize liberals for taking the time to criticize Limbaugh. I do agree that this is largely a waste of time to get upset here, since not even most of the conservatives here listen to the man. But what us moderates/liberal would hope is that one day conservatives who do listen to Limbaugh realize he's hurting conservatism and push him out, stop buying his books, and stop listening to the program, because they are so fed up with calling Presidents boys and magic Negros that they can't take it anymore just because the other parts are worthwhile to them.

Re: Suicide Bombers Are Better Than Gay Marriage

pacatrue — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:34:15 -0000

That's a really disgusting thought. Do you also think that every woman who is sexually assaulted was either 1) converted to heterosexuality by her rapist or 2) should give up all sexual behavior for the rest of her life?

Dang, that was a sick comment.

Re: Obama “Thesis” Controversy a Hoax: Limbaugh Gets “Punked”

pacatrue — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:11:30 -0000

And of course Obama can take criticism. The anger isn't because we have to shield Obama. It's because many Americans have gotten tired of belittling other Americans with racial terminology. This is about Limbaugh and the listeners who support him.

Re: Obama “Thesis” Controversy a Hoax: Limbaugh Gets “Punked”

pacatrue — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:09:32 -0000

I'm sorry, but I disagree almost completely. Here are some non-racial criticisms one could throw at Obama:

"The man has no idea what he's doing because he has no experience in executive management."
"He seems to just want to sit back and let all his advisors do the thinking? How's that using the amazing intellect his supporters think he has?"
"I tell you the White House is ineptly run."
"This policy that Obama is supporting is idiotic. It won't work, it'll bankrupt the nation, and it'll take away freedom from our citizens."

And on and on. You can lambast Obama for years on end without calling him a boy or a magic Negro.

Re: Obama “Thesis” Controversy a Hoax: Limbaugh Gets “Punked”

pacatrue — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:52:52 -0000

To echo TMSF, Rush knows how to play this game. He has chosen racially-loaded words to describe the first ever black President, but chosen ones so that he can pretend they are not racially loaded. The question is: has he routinely described white politicians he disagrees with as a boy? For instance, if my math is right, Bill Clinton, whom Rush built his career off of smashing, was a year younger when becoming Prez than Obama is. Was Rush always going off about this boy and man-child in the White House regarding Clinton, or did that term only show up with Obama? Remember this is the man of "the Magic Negro" fame. And how white kids are going to be beat up in Obama's America.

So in sum: Limbaugh makes songs about magic Negros, goes off about whites getting attacked by blacks in Obama's America, and repeatedly labels Obama as a "boy", a term used by whites to describe black men specifically for decades, when he never uses the term for white politicians he opposes, and we are supposed to think it's not related to race?

Of course the word "boy" has other meanings. But, sorry to go here, the word "nigger" only means black in Latin originally, but I hope people aren't going to start telling me Limbaugh would be justified in going off about our first nigger president, because the word just means black. It's like saying a discussion of big nosed moneylenders has nothing to do with anti-semitism because some money lenders have big noses.

Words take on their meaning because of the contexts in which they are used and the knowledge of the world that we share. You can claim any meaning you want to for "boy", but that's not communication. Communication depends upon shared context. And the context for Limbaugh's comments are a decades long history of treating black people as children that most of us have escaped. Not Limbaugh.

Re: Fashionable racism?

pacatrue — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:52:34 -0000

I am routinely fascinated by the worlds constructed in the different catalogs my wife receives.

Re: California High School Student, 15 Years Old, Gang-Raped for Two Hours While a Crowd Watched

pacatrue — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:49:55 -0000

The bystanders should be charged as well under what ever applicable laws there are.

Re: Small Business And The Curb Tax

pacatrue — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:09:34 -0000

Parking is huge. There are various strips of shops in Honolulu, some right near my home, that I never go to because parking is such an issue. Hmmm... Public transit?

Re: Lieberman Threatens to Join GOP Filibuster

pacatrue — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:03:19 -0000

The only way a public option has a shot is if the Senate leadership can find a way to make the death of the entire bill painful to this group. Right now, the more liberal Senators can say, "Well, I won't vote for it unless it has a public option," and Snowe/Liberman/Nelson can just say, "I guess there's no health care reform then." The more liberal members have to find a way to make that option unacceptable to the moderates. Otherwise, they hold all the power.

Re: Obama Declares National H1N1 Swine Flu National “Emergency”

pacatrue — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:30:45 -0000

Any move to paint this as a failure for Obama is pure spin. Maybe some things are not about Obama.

Re: The “Ridiculous” Health Care Constitutionality Question

pacatrue — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:27:39 -0000

It's always nice to see good extended posts with reasoning. It's too bad it has to be couched at the beginning in the notion that people who disagree with you are ignorant and stupid (adorably so, of course.) I'm assuming your tone matches Kathy's in her post. The other drawback is that your article gives a couple of places where the SCOTUS has already declared they disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution. While you may find SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution adorably ignorant, most believe that institution is the final arbiter on the Constitution. No problem with arguing that they got it wrong and that the the modern SCOTUS should reverse course, but if the precedents are what they are, then as of now, it suggests that SCOTUS would view health care legislation as indeed Constitutional.