tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post5360319846870863019..comments2024-03-18T15:03:58.758-04:00Comments on Progressive Eruptions: CONGRATULATIONS PRESIDENT OBAMA. OUR PROUD NATION SALUTES YOU.Shaw Kenawehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-27560398453290545442009-10-18T15:09:02.444-04:002009-10-18T15:09:02.444-04:00Seems like you ended up retreating and hanging you...Seems like you ended up retreating and hanging your fact-free defense of Jones on an assertion that the Wikipedia entry is false. An assertion based on a hunch or reaction, and not any evidence.<br /><br />Well, even that is gone. I have dug into original source documents. Summaries of STORM written by leftist academics, which go into detail about how the philosophy and goals of the organization were specifically inspired by Mao, Lenin, and others.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-89766581746392695182009-10-17T08:15:04.251-04:002009-10-17T08:15:04.251-04:00Sorry, Arthur. The description of STORM is indeed ...Sorry, Arthur. The description of STORM is indeed "good enough". It is in fact uncontroversial. Your objection appears to be just because you do not like the facts, and is not based on any evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />You might have an interesting point about Atwater. However, the link you provide is rather vague, and not specific. If it is true, then it is much worse than Atwater's anti-Dukakis campaign ad that was falsely identified as racist. And if it is true, or not, it has nothing to do with Van Jones.<br /><br />You DID for once make a good point. The one about Spike Lee. However, it is still not "libel" to discuss points of view put across in one's art. Whether it is Lee or Eastwood.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-51688665017041572402009-10-16T18:16:01.969-04:002009-10-16T18:16:01.969-04:00'Wikipedia describes Storm...'
Sorry Dma...'Wikipedia describes Storm...'<br /><br /><br />Sorry Dmarks. Not quite good enough. Somebody describes what somebody is<br /><br />On the other hand the late, unlamented Lee Atwater was and Karl Rove is a Maoist it appears.<br /><br />http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/white-house-vs-fox-chairman-mao/?hp<br /><br />Careful about interpreting works of art dmarks. Mookie did indeed help touch off a riot. Mookie is a fictional character in a fictitious work of cinema. It didn't 'justify' the acts of violence as much it portrayed them as the director imagined it could have unfolded.<br /><br />Is Clint Eastwood an actual vigilante?Arthurstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01083956773592540646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-73228214216427410382009-10-16T09:09:09.801-04:002009-10-16T09:09:09.801-04:00Arthur said: "Van Jones is not a member of an...Arthur said: "Van Jones is not a member of any 'extreme hate group'. That is your assertion. Like many you make it is simply preposterous."<br /><br />Actually, Jones <i>was</i> a member of an extreme hate group. That is not an assertion, it is mere fact. Part of history that you can't erase. He is no longer a member of STORM (a group based on Maoism). I never said he still was a member. <br /><br />Wikipedia describes STORM this way: "STORM considered Mao Zedong as their ideological leader". I know of course that Wikipedia is not conclusive, but it is telling that nobody has bothered to correct this summary. So it stands for now. And in the historical record, Mao stands as far and away the worst mass murderer in human history. Those who think that Mao is a great guy need to be held accountable just like those who think that Hitler is a great guy.<br /><br />As a former member, his repudiation of his hate-politics of his past has been lacking. And he can easily do so without turning into a right-winger. After all, liberals and progressives do find it easy not being foam-at-the-mouth Maoists.<br /><br />The difference between Maoism and liberalism is far greater than that between liberalism and conservativism, in fact.<br /><br />So, there you have it. The hard cold facts of Jones' extremism. No "assertions" by me. If you have further hard cold facts about Jones repudiating his past, I'd welcome it.<br /><br />------------<br /><br />Spike Lee did a famous movie which justified mindless rioting. (the violent actions by the Mookie character which touched off the riot). Whether or not Lee really thinks it is a great idea, he did do a movie that supports it, which makes discussing Lee as favoring such things into a reasonable topic.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-53602108039751800812009-10-15T14:11:06.042-04:002009-10-15T14:11:06.042-04:00dmarks typed:
'Actually, the issue of conten...dmarks typed:<br /><br /><br />'Actually, the issue of contention is not "leftist politics", but membership in nominally-left-wing extreme hate groups.'<br /><br />Van Jones is not a member of any 'extreme hate group'. That is your assertion. Like many you make it is simply preposterous.<br /><br />The suggestion that Spike Lee is 'for mindless rioting' is another fine example.Arthurstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01083956773592540646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-33086450251613836742009-10-14T19:26:06.704-04:002009-10-14T19:26:06.704-04:00" As with so many Black civil rights leaders,..." As with so many Black civil rights leaders, Van Jones included, his leftist politics continue to be a source of contention."<br /><br />It is a smear of King and actual civil rights leaders to include this minor hatemonger among their ranks. <br /><br />Yes, his leftist politics continue to be a source of contention. Not because they are left wing, but because they are rather extreme.<br /><br />You know as well as I do that my issue with Jones is not his leftism. It is his extreme fringe views, especially his support of Maoism.<br /><br />"Last time I checked it wasn't illegal in the US to have leftist politics."<br /><br />Actually, the issue of contention is not "leftist politics", but membership in nominally-left-wing extreme hate groups. Obama's czar list and cabinet is filled almost entirely with leftists. So what. That does not bother me. It it when administration officials are members of genocidal hate groups that it is a problem.<br /><br />Nor is it illegal to be in the Ku Klux Klan, by the way.<br /><br />But anyone who puts either a communist or a Klansman in high office sure well deserves loud criticism for it. And an elected official who appoints and keeps such monsters deserves a drubbing at the polls for it. <br /><br />(But not Obama. He did the wise thing. Jones is out).<br /><br />My dislike of hate groups extends to the right side as well. I doubt I could in good conscience vote for a Republican who is cozy with the crypto-Klan "Council of Conservative Citizens"dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-88649775419827815192009-10-14T18:43:22.155-04:002009-10-14T18:43:22.155-04:00I wish we could put the red-baiting of Dr. King to...I wish we could put the red-baiting of Dr. King to rest but sadly (as I posted earlier in this thread) it continues to this day. As with so many Black civil rights leaders, Van Jones included, his leftist politics continue to be a source of contention.<br /><br />Main Entry: red–bait·ing<br />Function: noun<br />Usage: often capitalized R<br />Date: 1928<br />: the act of attacking or persecuting as a Communist or as communistic<br /><br />You quoted Van Jones saying, "I was a communist".<br /><br />Last time I checked it wasn't illegal in the US to have leftist politics.<br /><br />But still the attacks and the persecution continue even though Jones works above board, openly and transparently. <br /><br />Sorry. It's wrong to do so.Arthurstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01083956773592540646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-90260835541682992642009-10-14T13:52:05.787-04:002009-10-14T13:52:05.787-04:00Arthur said: "Van Jones can only 'complet...Arthur said: "Van Jones can only 'completely repudiate' is past associations by becoming a right-wing mouthpiece ala David Horowitz"<br /><br />You stated this before, and it made absolutely no sense at all back then. <br /><br />"He won't. His politics remain leftist."<br /><br />He can easily repudiate Maoism<br />and reiterate that he is a progressive. After all, liberalism and progressivism really has little to do with the murderous fringe that is Maoism.<br /><br />Jones can easily say that he is still on the left, but that his advocoacy of the policies of Mao was a big mistake. <br /><br />Only the Limbaugh-types use fear mongering and claim that Maoism is part of the progressive movement. It comes to this again and again, isn't it? That I see a big difference between Maoism (Mao, Pol Pot, etc) and progressivism (Paul Wellstone, Obama, Ted Kennedy). And you do not.<br /><br />"That he has chosen to work within the system will simply not do for a certain segment of the population."<br /><br />That implies that he has chosen to work within the system to bring about the goals of Maoism. That does not look the best.<br /><br />"He, regretably will never be judged by his actions by that crowd but rather as they choose to view his associations."<br /><br />Whoever they are, I don't care. I judge him by his actions and statements.<br /><br />"As I've written before. That's what red-baiting is all about and it seems to remain as American as apple pie."<br /><br />Red-baiting is all about falsely accusing someone of being a communist, just because that person happens to be on the left side. A great example of this is what was done to Dr. King. It has no applicability here, when <i>the person being discussed readily accused himself of being a communist in his own words</i>.<br /><br />To spell it out more plainly to you:<br /><br />"Dr. King = communist": Example of FBI lies.<br /><br />"Van Jones = communist": A specific statement Jones made himself.<br /><br />Big difference. These are the facts, and hopefully the nonsequitur equating of Dr. King with Jones can be retired now. <br /><br />"I was a communist", said Jones. I guess this might mean that Jones was red-baiting himself?dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-21663826104441713612009-10-14T11:12:50.199-04:002009-10-14T11:12:50.199-04:00Van Jones can only 'completely repudiate' ...Van Jones can only 'completely repudiate' is past associations by becoming a right-wing mouthpiece ala David Horowitz. He won't. His politics remain leftist. That he has chosen to work within the system will simply not do for a certain segment of the population. He, regretably will never be judged by his actions by that crowd but rather as they choose to view his associations. <br /><br />As I've written before. That's what red-baiting is all about and it seems to remain as American as apple pie.Arthurstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01083956773592540646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-80862273738223800302009-10-14T06:50:16.443-04:002009-10-14T06:50:16.443-04:00"Your labels are completely subjective"
..."Your labels are completely subjective"<br /><br />This is not the case, actually. I make an effort to measure the fringes, and extremes, by how the public perceives the fringes and extremes. Not from my own subjective view.<br /><br />"Belonged for a period of time to a Marxist organization"<br /><br />Well, just about everyone, except those on the fringe, consider Marxism to be rather extreme. However, you are not being specific. Is that intentional?<br /><br />The STORM group is "Maoist"... subscribing a particular branch of Marxism that is without parallel in its bloodiness and oppression and insanity. The ideology of Mao, Pol Pot, and Peru's "Shining Path". <br /><br />Why would Jones join?<br /><br />It shows that either Jones is a stupid bungler and has no idea what he is doing (an idea supported by his petition mistake you mentioned earlier), or is extremely ill-willed. Either way, do we want anyone like that in a position of power?<br /><br />How is either "completely acceptible"? Especially his Maoism? <br /><br />Read up on the history of Maoism. Unless Van Jones has completely repudiated any connection or support for this, how can this be "competely acceptible"?<br /><br />Isn't a worldview in which Maoism is "completely acceptible" a fringe or far view by objective measurements, since so few support it?<br /><br />(By the way, I am offended by many rightists. I only bring up David Duke, because as a self-professed Nazi, he is a fringe/far parallel to Van Jones).dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-73482866730948199222009-10-14T00:57:09.174-04:002009-10-14T00:57:09.174-04:00I don't agree at all.
Your labels are complet...I don't agree at all.<br /><br />Your labels are completely subjective. Personally I find the politics of guys like Eliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz and Daniel Pipes extreme. You don't. For some reason David Duke is the only rightest you seem to find offensive.<br /><br />I find each of these men far from suitable for serving in my government that. Our government is full (particularly after the last eight miserable years) of far-right, hawkish, fundamentalist theocrats. Not that hawks haven't always dominated in Washington DC mind you.<br /><br />I find Van Jones, on the other hand, completely acceptable. He was arrested once (as many were) during a Rodney King demonstration. Belonged for a period of time to a Marxist organization and regrets signing a petition he claims he misunderstood. None of what I've ever read about Van Jones would disqualify him, in my view, from serving in government.Arthurstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01083956773592540646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-86650932910706728312009-10-13T21:39:50.983-04:002009-10-13T21:39:50.983-04:00Actually, wouldn't most agree that the "f...Actually, wouldn't most agree that the "fringes" are the same as the "far-" wing of either left or right?<br /><br />Agree?<br /><br />Now, earlier you yourself said that Van Jones was "far left". Which puts him in the fringe.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-28161476374646908642009-10-13T19:55:08.522-04:002009-10-13T19:55:08.522-04:00The definitive view:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv...The definitive view:<br /><br />http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910130051<br /><br />dmarks typed:<br /><br />'Why not the fringes? The far left, and the far right. What is so hard about defining it that way?'<br /><br />For one thing you and I, two reasonable people, can't agree between us just what the 'fringes' are. What happens when we introduce unreasonable people into the discussion?<br /><br />For you Van Jones is. For me he's not.Arthurstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01083956773592540646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-36274660414185908352009-10-13T18:52:39.229-04:002009-10-13T18:52:39.229-04:00Arthur said: "You've been hinting at this...Arthur said: "You've been hinting at this for months so it's nice to have it spelled out."<br /><br />I made this clear a long time ago.<br /><br />"Of course there is always the question of just what a *radical* is."<br /><br />Why not the fringes? The far left, and the far right. What is so hard about defining it that way?<br /><br />"And what are you so frightened of? Don't trust your fellow citizens to be as discerning as yourself? "<br /><br />No. I just don't trust the extremists. When the far right or far left get into power, they quickly and easily go about the business of large-scale slaughter and oppression.<br /><br />No "discerning" person would appoint a Nazi or Communist to a high office.<br /><br />"From my point of view your suggestion David Duke be 'shut out of civil society' is preposterous. Unpopular opinions have every right to be heard."<br /><br />You know as well as I do how much I am against censorship. I've neve ever denied anyone's right to be heard. My suggestion is not proposterous, but is quite reasonable. No one should be appointing people like this to government posts. <br /><br />I would not outlaw it. Pressure from an informed public should be enough to keep the Dukes' and Jones's from being appointed to any unelected positions of power. Executive leaders such as Presidents and governors are indeed held accountable by the electorate for their executive political appointments. <br /><br />The same informed public has also ensured that these radical parties get few votes in elections.<br /><br />"Sorry dmarks.You're going to have to do better than that."<br /><br />I did much better than "that". "That" being your views, and the straw man you presented of me (in which I favored censorship).<br /><br />------------------<br /><br />Shaw said: "Are you aware that Helen Keller was a Socialist?"<br /><br />There are some nice socialists in Europe too. The thing is, that socialism is a pretty wide scale. There are a lot of people on the relatively benign end. On the extreme end you will find "pure socialism": the communists. It is on that end that the real loony toons reside. Just as with the far right.<br /><br />People like Keller and Einstein were on the mild end of the socialist scale.<br /><br />"And that Nobel Peace Prize winner Woodrow Wilson was a racist?"<br /><br />I already had a lot of "disfavor" for Wilson, who was one of the main architects of Yugoslavia. His mistake at forcing nations against their will into one hodgepodge nation reached full flower in the 1940s and 1990s.<br /><br />Imagine the lack of deaths in the 1990s if Kosovo had not earlier been forced into Yugoslavia against its will.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-11683266422306341292009-10-12T20:36:21.867-04:002009-10-12T20:36:21.867-04:00dmarks typed:
'Any radicals, left or right, d...dmarks typed:<br /><br />'Any radicals, left or right, deserve to be exposed and shut out of civilized society.'<br /><br /><br />I'm glad you finally typed it dmarks.<br /><br />You've been hinting at this for months so it's nice to have it spelled out.<br /><br />Of course there is always the question of just what a *radical* is.<br /><br />And what are you so frightened of? Don't trust your fellow citizens to be as discerning as yourself? <br /><br />From my point of view your suggestion David Duke be 'shut out of civil society' is preposterous. Unpopular opinions have every right to be heard. And the voters have spoken time and again as regards the views of the pitiful David Duke.<br /><br />Sorry dmarks.<br /><br />You're going to have to do better than that.Arthurstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01083956773592540646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-40806106709058914992009-10-11T08:32:59.527-04:002009-10-11T08:32:59.527-04:00dmarks,
Are you aware that Helen Keller was a Soc...dmarks,<br /><br />Are you aware that Helen Keller was a Socialist?<br /><br />And that Nobel Peace Prize winner Woodrow Wilson was a racist?Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-31888888351360836052009-10-10T22:10:01.799-04:002009-10-10T22:10:01.799-04:00Arthur said: "as evidenced in the attacks on ...Arthur said: "as evidenced in the attacks on Ayers, Jones, ACORN etc. is back in fashion. It was and remains a sordid chapter in our history."<br /><br />Jones and Ayers have admitted it, so it is hardly any sort of sordid "attack". Pointing out these facts about them is not any sort of baiting.<br /><br />"Persecution of 'thought crimes' is the issue. Jones is no terrorist."<br /><br />"Thought crimes" are not the issue. Espousing radical views of hate and extremism and violence are. Jones is no terrorist. Nor is David Duke. But that does not make any of them heroes or even good guys.<br /><br />Ayers used tactics I disagree with but given our governments manipulation and mis-management of cases regarding Leftist radicals we'll never know if he was criminally culpable."<br /><br />Any radicals, left or right, deserve to be exposed and shut out of civilized society.<br /><br />"There is a double standard. Far- Leftist politics can disqualify persons from participating in the process in a way rightist"<br /><br />A double-standard I have fought against. I believe that the violent extremes (both far left and far right) have no place in civilized discourse. And I have readily named similar figures on the right (similar to Jones) whom I also denounce.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-85539306399192957832009-10-10T22:08:29.416-04:002009-10-10T22:08:29.416-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-82196773360738597072009-10-10T13:04:46.808-04:002009-10-10T13:04:46.808-04:00Arthurstone, I don't really give a whiff if it...Arthurstone, I don't really give a whiff if it disappears or not. It really doesn't concern me. I was just pointing out that "red" doesn't mean what it used to mean.<br /><br />Ayres has admitted that he was "guilty as hell." He, at least, has the excuse that he joined up when it was trendy among the left to advocate the violent overthrow of the government, with attendant mass murder.<br /><br />Jones hooked up with the Maoists after the fall of the USSR, when most of the communists in the west decided that the environmental movement was the place to hang their banners. He's a relatively recent convert to the greenies, who wish to use the fear of global warming to gain the power they were denied earlier.Gordon Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16772014586181361069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-22749936743512558522009-10-10T12:44:33.788-04:002009-10-10T12:44:33.788-04:00I can well understand the impulse to hav a phrase ...I can well understand the impulse to hav a phrase like 'red-baiter' disappear. It is very unbecoming. But it has a solid historical basis and, as evidenced in the attacks on Ayers, Jones, ACORN etc. is back in fashion. It was and remains a sordid chapter in our history. <br /><br />Persecution of 'thought crimes' is the issue. Jones is no terrorist. Ayers used tactics I disagree with but given our governments manipulation and mis-management of cases regarding Leftist radicals we'll never know if he was criminally culpable. The government spent so much time & effort doctoring evidence, hatching plots and murdering Black Panthers in their own beds they failed to get many convictions. <br /><br />There is a double standard. Far- Leftist politics can disqualify persons from participating in the process in a way rightistArthurstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01083956773592540646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-10756079392207725872009-10-10T12:44:21.197-04:002009-10-10T12:44:21.197-04:00dMarks,
Ah, that makes sense. It seemed like bef...dMarks,<br /><br />Ah, that makes sense. It seemed like before that, the networks would individually alternate the color every four years. David Brinkley's famous comment about Reagan's 1980 win was that the map looked <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950508,00.html" rel="nofollow"> "like a suburban swimming pool." </a><br /><br />Now we're stuck with the two assigned colors. Curse your memory, Tim Russert!Gordon Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16772014586181361069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-11121872511445561932009-10-10T12:28:11.943-04:002009-10-10T12:28:11.943-04:00Rocky: You make some good points there.
I see &qu...Rocky: You make some good points there.<br /><br />I see "Obama as Chamberlain" as a prediction by some. A warning of what might happen, but has not happened. And hopefully won't happen. But regardless, it has not happened yet.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-92060030516276521452009-10-10T11:03:24.128-04:002009-10-10T11:03:24.128-04:00Jim - Obama, in his speech in the Middle East prom...Jim - Obama, in his speech in the Middle East promised to work with other countries as long as they extended their hand and not their fist, he outed Iran on their clandistine bomb factory, he has stayed the course in Iraq and Afghanistan.<br />The reference to Chamberlain has no relevance.rockynchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00772988855661101621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-70421845882409216582009-10-10T09:50:52.339-04:002009-10-10T09:50:52.339-04:00Gordon: You make a great point there. The term &qu...Gordon: You make a great point there. The term "red" is slowly and inexorably coming to mean conservatives and Republicans.<br /><br />The red state, blue state terms according to the Washington Post "were coined by television journalist Tim Russert during his televised coverage of the 2000 presidential election."<br /><br />So it probably boils down to a split-second arbitrary decision by a major network graphics designer. He could just as well have chosen pink and green.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-60407208901379996872009-10-10T09:47:31.997-04:002009-10-10T09:47:31.997-04:00"Obama has been at least as much of a war mon..."Obama has been at least as much of a war monger as Bush."<br /><br />In real world terms, that means "not at all".<br /><br />The truth of it, Libhom, is that Obama is sitting in a place where he is getting all the facts, many of them classified. That is why he's not caving in to the so-called "peace movement", nor is he satisfying their "nothing to do with the real world" demands by quickly surrendering to the terrorists.<br /><br />As for the so-called "peace movement", they typically only call for one side to surrender in a war, and hardly ever criticize the aggressors. How many protesters went to the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the period between 9/11 and the US invasion of Afghanistan to convince them to call off their holy war?<br /><br />It truly is more like a "war is peace" movement.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.com