Comments Posted By Elizho
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 12 Comments
MUSEUM SHOOTER INFLUENCED BY RIGHT WING RHETORIC?
It's interesting to see that the piece pretty much is self-contradictory in itself. First the author accuses the "left" for blaming the conservative movement for this particular incident without actually providing a shred of evidence, while I haven't seen any major or minor media outlet ever accusing or attaching the "tea party" to it, then shoots himself in the foot by employing the same concocted psycho-analysis he just hurled at the supposed lefties. What gives Rick? Was this entry a trigger-happy reflexive reaction just to close the doors shut for any possible criticism?
Comment Posted By Elizho On 11.06.2009 @ 20:24
"Hannity is as bad as any Media Matters flunkie who consistently takes what conservatives say out of context in order to make it appear that the right eats babies in the morning, rapes virgins in the afternoon, and tops off the day by lynching black people at night."
Media Matters, for most part, does not take the content out of context. I have caught a few reports that deviated from accuracy but the majority of the posts are simply a transcript of the show.
Comment Posted By Elizho On 11.06.2009 @ 20:46
CONOR FRIEDERSDORF AND HIS ABOMINABLE STRAWMEN
"I have given up trying to understand why conservatives place such importance on what comes out of the mouths of pop righties like Levin whose shtick, while entertaining, is taken far too seriously by way too many."
You admitted yourself: there are just way too many impressionable minds being horns-woggled into wave after wave of talk radio hokum while having no intellectual accretion to show for at the end of the day other than an exhaustively rehearsed set of malapropisms to hector their feigned counterparts. I might agree or disagree with his approach to construct an effective defense against these pop culture pundits to shock the lost generation of Right back to life but at least his effort will not be futile.
"But really now, must we elevate to hero status people whose claim to fame is that they can savage the opposition in more colorful and amusing ways than some other shock jock?"
You can take a parallel analogy from the ever popular "rap battles" performed as a ritual to earn "respect" by disrespecting your little-known opponent. I could not agree more with you on this matter.
Comment Posted By Elizho On 4.06.2009 @ 19:26
DEALERGATE: STATISTICAL COINCIDENCE OR POLITICAL BIAS? (IMPORTANT UPDATE BELOW)
cdor,
Your picayune piffle only makes you uniquely irrelevant. Stick to the topic.
Comment Posted By Elizho On 28.05.2009 @ 21:57
Nate Silver's analysis illustrates that when a query string "car dealers" is applied, the ratio of Rep to Dem is 3 to 1 which is the same ratio concluded by the Open Source's. However, Nate Silver also examined other variety queries and used the compounded data to come up with 88% to 12% ratio -- Open Source obviously didn't bother to go down path. This is a none story, moving along...
Comment Posted By Elizho On 28.05.2009 @ 21:56
US DECLARES HEALTH EMERGENCY WHILE OBAMA GOLFS
Rick you may want to ask the fellow Republicans to stop injecting the unfounded fear of Mexicans rushing to the US in masses over the Swine Flu and "earthquake" (!!!) You also want to advise the fringed segment of right to stop using the pandemic, which has been less deleterious compared to SARS of two years ago, to advance their nefarious immigration agenda.
Comment Posted By Elizho On 29.04.2009 @ 23:18
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PARTISANS TO 'OUT' GAY REPUBLICANS
Several points here:
First, for the life of me, I don't know of any respected director who fiddles with such tremendous intellectual bankruptcy while allowing himself to allot a considerable segment of the documentary to nothing but a panoply of baseless accusations and rumors on Charlie Crist's sexual orientation. That is simply a dishonest attempt in concocting a story to garner up sensational activism. The remaining of the documentary appears to recapitulate the same old stories of politicians who have been, one way or another, outed or come out -- nothing new here.
Some people question the methodology of certain groups, aka OutRage!, in outing public officials and in some cases, their decision has been absolutely abhorrent. The action, in my opinion, should be looked upon in a case by case basis. One's sexual preference should, by the rule of thumb, be a private matter unless the action, first, diametrically opposes one's very being, and second, the individual retroactively seeks to undermine the rights of others while privately practicing against his/her rendering of law. I think Barney Frank has adequately put it when he says (paraphrasing), "You have a right to privacy, but not to hypocrisy." You can not be for abortion while performing it behind closed doors, especially when your ongoing pursue of abortion rights on the floor of legislation clearly goes against your deeds.
Comment Posted By Elizho On 24.04.2009 @ 17:31
ecs,
I wonder why his boss hadn't done that before leaving office! Humility? Doubt it. Cheney has proven himself to be nothing more than a verbal vomitter [sic] with no moral integrity. Moreover, the issue is not about whether the information collected was directly resulted from the tortures but rather the legality of the techniques in its entirety. Unless you spout "whatever president does, it doesn't make it illegal" argument. In that case, happy God-Wins law.
Comment Posted By Elizho On 23.04.2009 @ 22:53
I like how Rick juxtaposes a fictitious Hollywood thriller with reality. If torture was the cornerstone of interrogation techniques, why even stop with the previously legalized "enhanced" methods and start surgically removing detainee's testicles and shoving them down his throat? I mean, after all, the end result justifies everything, right? Why not shove a hose up a suspected child kidnapper, while hung him upside down, have the water flow from his large intestine to his mouth? That should get him talking about the child's where about, wouldn't you agree?
Another fantasy that people usually indulge themselves with is the singularity of action by the protagonist on the shows. From Rambo to Bauer, the movies depict the safety of entire nation resting on the shoulders of one individual while in reality, the process includes if not thousands but hundreds of people, each with the different set of complex psychological construct. If torture was to be allowed, each person in charge would ultimately interpret the definition on its own merit and on top of that, this action, if permitted, would let others to employ torture as a justifiable means in their line of work (law enforcement, et al.). So as you can see, it is not about "them" but rather it's about "us."
And please stop falsely perpetuating the notion that the high ranking congressional officials knew fully what it was going on. They were briefed by the appropriate agency but were not given the exact details of these enhanced interrogation techniques. Another fallacy that is finding its way in the morally bankrupted political sphere is that the tortures employed by the previous administration were vital in keeping us safe. So if there was no attack during any administration that does not condone torture, should we automatically assume the lack of such techniques was imminent in prevention of further attacks in that period? The argument is moot.
Bottom line, the United States of America does NOT torture, period.
P.S. I am really interested in seeing an official report elaborating on how the previous administration's torture saved thousands of lives by foiling a major attack on the US soil. If they had, wouldn't have we heard about it by now? After all, that would constitute an ultimate PR triumph.
Comment Posted By Elizho On 23.04.2009 @ 22:35
INDEFENSIBLE: OBAMA FAILS HIS FIRST BIG TEST
Has anyone noticed almost in every multi-national conference the US delegates have attended, it has become a custom for the US to be a well-established target of censure? It is clearly a legacy of Bush administration left for this nation to deal with for decades to come. Yes, the majority of these harangues are being pegged by the nefarious elements such as Chavez, Ahmadinejad, et al. but the point is that every Conservative administration since Reagan has done so much negative that in retrospect it has granted these neo-anti-Americans enough ammo to rail against the US at every chance they can muster and use the sentiment to garner support among their local constituents. Even that I consider certain fiscal Conservative policies meritorious, one thing for sure, the Conservative foreign policy has served this country nothing other than antagonism in almost every corner of this planet.
And as for Rick's suggestion for Obama to grow a pair of cajones and walk out of the conference, I must say that's the most juvenile deed one can commit to. When encounter with thugs, the worst reaction is to bestow a landscape of reason for them to waltz into their thuggish modus operandi. Many Conservative common folks have this mentality that any sort of misdeed must be answered with a swift round kick. If diplomacy was to be trimmed to such level, then why do even have the State Department in the first place? Just to be fair, Rick has clearly stated that the US' pass action, i.e. sending economical hitmen for resource subjugation, etc., has indeed contributed, partially, to the current establishment of power in the region although, as always, the local regimes and people who enable them are too should take the blame for many shortcomings, and rightfully so.
I believe what Rick demands from Obama is to reciprocate the same amount of blame-game to these attention-seekers, i.e. Ortego and Chavez by articulating their history of atrocities and what not. If Obama was to go down that path, the encounter would culminate to nothing but a snot fest of Imperialism-vs-Fascism contest. As a president of the United States, you never allow yourself to stoop to such level where the discourse is mired with a dialogue suited for school yard argument -- you just don't. I believe what Obama should have added is that in retrospect, although the US' role in the region has not always been beneficial, many faults also lay on the local governing forces therefore, it would be paramount for the solution to be approach from a mutual and bilateral stand point. Meaning, even though both sides have had their share of blame (not equally in many respect), we might be able to agree upon a new approach. Of course, many in the hardcore Conservative movement will go into shock-induced coma as any thought of something remotely close to the aforementioned statement.
Comment Posted By Elizho On 20.04.2009 @ 21:27
