Comments Posted By Brainster
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 64 Comments
MATT STOELLER BRAVELY STICKS HIS TONGUE OUT AT THE RIGHT
Tano, in three paragraphs he levels the racist charge three times despite the rather obvious fact that there is no racial angle to the Jill Carroll story. Talk about knee-jerk responses!
Comment Posted By Brainster On 3.04.2006 @ 12:31
Hey! Bugs is a far more brilliant thinker and philosopher than Stoller!
It seems to me that the way to get ahead in the Lefty blogosphere is to (as Kos once said) "be more of an asshole". Matt clearly has taken that advice.
Comment Posted By Brainster On 3.04.2006 @ 12:05
I agree that there apparently seems to be something to the plagiarism charges, but let's allow the investigation of that issue to proceed. Domenech claims credit/permission was given; that should not be difficult to check.
And let's be sure not to let it end with Domenech! If he is fired, or resigns, the Post should find another conservative blogger to fill the position.
Comment Posted By Brainster On 24.03.2006 @ 11:13
THE "HAPPY WARRIOR" IS WEEPING IN HIS GRAVE
Great post. I suspect if you were to listen to Humphrey's speech today, you might wince a bit. Goldwater was a fine man, a "leave us the hell alone" conservative, who blazed the trail for Ronaldus Maximus.
Unfortunately, my first experience with watching a convention was four years later in Chicago. Not pretty, not pleasant.
Comment Posted By Brainster On 17.02.2006 @ 14:19
SADDAM TAPES: WHY IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP
I caught Loftus' connection with the Bush/Nazi meme yesterday afternoon. It certainly raises a red flag in my mind as to what's going on here. Loftus is no friend of the Bushes, that much is clear.
Comment Posted By Brainster On 16.02.2006 @ 15:32
"SADDAM TAPES" REQUIRE A CAUTIOUS APPROACH
Loftus is also the guy who claims to have unearthed the supposed "Bush-Nazi" connection, so it seems unlikely that he's carrying water for the administration. This does indicate that the story should be approached with some caution.
Comment Posted By Brainster On 15.02.2006 @ 18:34
A SLAVISH DEVOTION TO SUPERFICIALITY
Greenwald had a point on the Sullivan thing, I thought. But his comments about Mrs M were hilarious. When he claimed that he figured she'd support concentration camps for Arabs; and wondered had anybody ever asked her, I just about fell out of my chair laughing. Considering that Mohammed Atta was on the cover of the freaking book, it's a rather obvious question (and the answer was that no, she didn't support rounding up the Arabs in America). And in fact her book was not a defense of internment per se, so much as it was a defense of internment against the charge that it was solely based on racism against Japanese-Americans.
The projection was too hilarious; suddenly we're the people with irrational hatred? Back during the Clinton years, maybe, but nowadays it's the wackadoodle left who's foaming at the mouth.
You're right, Greenwald is superficial in the extreme here. It's a shame because I thought he had some game to him.
Comment Posted By Brainster On 12.02.2006 @ 20:55
MORE LAZY REPORTING FROM THE MEDIA
Yes, it seems that some people have gone from defending their right to publish the cartoons and turned it into "they're right to publish the cartoons."
I took the middle ground on this back in November when the controversy first surfaced. I'll confess I was wondering if I was missing something earlier this week when everybody started proclaiming solidarity with the Danes.
Comment Posted By Brainster On 4.02.2006 @ 10:49
A DEAD WRONG HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF 9/11
What I find curious the logic that Ellis uses. Boiled down, his argument appears to be that we have faced greater threats to the country before, that in those times our leaders saw fit to (temporarily) take significant rights away from us; that in retrospect those decisions were wrong, and that therefore we should not acquiesce to the relatively insignificant rights lost to the Patriot Act and the wiretapping cases.
He argues that the threat posed by 9-11 is not on the scale of Hitler or the Communists, and that may be true. But what about comparing the scale of the Patriot Act to the Sedition Act, or the suspension of habeas corpus, or the Internment Camps? It's not hard to see that Adams, Lincoln and Roosevelt posed far greater threats to civil liberty than Bush.
And he's being unfair by comparing the "threat posed by 9-11" to World War II or the Cold War. The threat is not posed by 9-11, it's posed by radical Islamists, just as the threat wasn't World War II, it was Hitler and the Japanese.
Comment Posted By Brainster On 28.01.2006 @ 16:45
THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT: THE RIGHT AND WRONG OF IT
As I wrote in my post (trackback message said slowdown cowboy), the problem is that the administration has been too good at stopping terrorism, and hence the focus has turned away from that to civil rights. When you win on an issue (and indisputably the Bush Administration has won so far in preventing terrorist attacks), you inevitably chip away at the relevance of that issue to the overall national debate and other competing values arise.
But I don't buy the notion that we're through this thing by any means. I suspect we've been lucky and good and that only takes you so far.
Comment Posted By Brainster On 26.01.2006 @ 02:11
