Time To Turn The Rat?

Mr. Simberg,

As you strive valiantly to tear Brack Obama down, please don't forget your responsibility to also tear down Oprah Winfrey, another congregant in the same hate filled church.

Please set your sights firmly on tearing down everyone who wants to unite us, who wants to move past the differences of the past, who wants a better and more united nation.

No goal is more worthy, and no prophet more capable in this regard than the heroic Rush Limbaugh and he surely cannot do as well without your help.

I have no interest in "tearing anyone down," and I have no interest in Oprah Winfrey at all, unless she runs for president. I'm indifferent to that church and its congregants, other than the one that wants to be the next president. They can rant whatever hateful anti-American stuff they want, to their heart's delight. That's what this country is all about. But I'm exercising my free speech as well. Sorry you don't like it.

Anyway, can't you even read? I just told you, now that he's been hurt, I want to help him, to keep him in the race against Hillary!. I'm just trying to keep socialists from getting elected.

The notion that a) we need uniting and b) Obama would do that, is hilarious. Actually, it sounds all of a piece with the whole fascist, personality cultish enterprise represented by the Obama campaign.

Dear Mr. Simberg,

You are wrong on several different levels, but perhaps I could restrain myself to just one:

Would the Rev. Jeremiah Wright say "God Bless America" when Barack Obama is elected President? Or would he say "God Damn, I was wrong and Barack was right about the American people. It truly is a new day."

Who would be more likely to reconcile our racial differences and tensions that still evidently exist: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain? Or the grand inquisitor, Rush Limbaugh, that self described trouble maker?

Please set your sights firmly on tearing down everyone who wants to unite us, who wants to move past the differences of the past, who wants a better and more united nation.

I don't think Rand needs to set his sights on anything, the public in general is moving away from Obama over this issue. So, in essence, Rand's reporting, something the media seldom does correctly anymore.

Who would be more likely to reconcile our racial differences...

Well, to listen to Wright, and hear the hatred for whites, I'm forced to assume that person is NOT Obama. Hatred does not reconcile anything.

Mr. Mac,

What if it is precisely the hearing of such rhetoric that convinced Obama for the need to make Unity the focus of his campaign? Is that something one might consider? Could Barack possibly be running against the thinking of Jeremiah?

Surely there is not an iota of evidence for anything but bringing people together in Obama's career. The Chicago Tribune which has never ever endorsed a Democrat for President prior to Obama, surely cannot have been duped. What do you think?

Would the Rev. Jeremiah Wright say "God Bless America" when Barack Obama is elected President? Or would he say "God Damn, I was wrong and Barack was right about the American people. It truly is a new day."

How would I know? Why would I care? I'm certainly not going to attempt to get into the mind of a hateful bigoted loon.

Who would be more likely to reconcile our racial differences and tensions that still evidently exist: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain? Or the grand inquisitor, Rush Limbaugh, that self described trouble maker?

Probably Obama, but the fact that he's more likely to do so doesn't make him likely to do so. And it's unlikely to happen as long as there are people like Jeremiah Wright.

And even if he could, you have a very strange and baseless premise--that I think that the biggest problem that the nation faces is to "reconcile our racial differences and tensions." Or indeed, that that's the case. That would be nice to do, but many other issues trump it for me, and Obama would be abysmal on them.

As I've noted before, if you've ever taken a course in logic, you should ask for your money back. I really don't know why you're wasting your time here with such pathetic and irrelevant "arguments" and questions. I am not going to support Obama. Neither, I suspect, are many of my readers.

And even if he could, you have a very strange and baseless premise--that I think that the biggest problem that the nation faces is to "reconcile our racial differences and tensions."

I beg to differ Mr. Simberg. We are a very dis-united nation. And it does seem odd that at the very same time that you scoff at this local attempt at nation building, you suport an effort to reconcile the racial and religious differences in Iraq which costs us 12 Billion dollars a month. So what is unnecessary here in our own backyard, is clearly in your mind very necessary elsewhere.

Thank you for your honesty in recognizing at least some merit in electing Obama.

We are a very dis-united nation.

As we have been since its founding. Yet we're still the greatest nation, by any rational measure, on the planet.

Thank you for your honesty in recognizing at least some merit in electing Obama.

It would irrational and stupid to claim that there was zero merit in electing Obama (again, work on the logic thing). Almost anyone we elect will have some good and some bad features. But it would be even nuttier to think that it would be a good idea, net.

The optimal situation is for Obama to get to Denver with the lead in delegates, Clinton with the momentum, and for the convention to go to 113 ballots and end in a corrupt bargain. So far, so good.

Derb predicted some time back that the Dems would pick Al Gore for '08. If Gore then chose Obama as Veep, and shut out the Clintons, damage would be minimised. There would be some grumbling in the black community but they'd accept it: Gore was the martyr to the disenfranchised voters of Florida, the guy who should have been in charge during Katrina, etc. Clinton voters, excepting the hard core of lesbian librarians, can easily switch to become Gore voters. A Gore / McCain debate would end up a shouting match, most likely, but Gore's anger would be viewed as righteous wrath while McCain will be called a cranky old coot.

I hate to say it but Gore + Obama '08 will get a landslide. Gore would compare Obama to Dick Cheney, Spiro Agnew, and Richard Nixon: look at all the villains Republicans had as veeps, the noise machine is trading on the politics of fear blah blah.

Yet we're still the greatest nation, by any rational measure, on the planet.

You've described the presidential election as dominated by
phonies, mafiosos, incompetents, and sellouts. It's a dog-eat-dog contest in which two of the three plausible candidates are contemptible people who deserve to be set against each other. The third one is no great shakes either. Then you turn around and say that we're the greatest nation on the planet by any rational measure.

That is an incredibly bleak view of humanity. If this is what it's like to be the greatest, it must really suck everywhere else.

Jim: If this is what it's like to be the greatest, it must really suck everywhere else.

And it does. I would say that except for a few very homogenous developed countries like Finland and Japan, the rest of the world IS worse off than US.

David: I hate to say it but Gore + Obama '08 will get a landslide.

I hope you realize you are speaking hypothetically. With almost all pledged delegates locked in by now, neither Gore nor anyone else can butt in at this point.

With almost all pledged delegates locked in by now, neither Gore nor anyone else can butt in at this point.

Actually, if neither candidate has enough delegates at the convention to win on the first vote, there will be a second one, where no one is pledged. At that point, all bets are off. The party could in theory settle on some different, "consensus" candidate. That may in fact be what some of the super delegates are thinking now, given the unelectability of both front runners, though not necessarily Gore.

if neither candidate has enough delegates at the convention to win on the first vote

Since winning requires a simple majority, what you described can occur with three or more competing candidates, but how can it possibly happen with just two?

...what you described can occur with three or more competing candidates, but how can it possibly happen with just two?

As far as I know, John Edwards has yet to release his delegates...

I would say that except for a few very homogenous developed countries like Finland and Japan

No, the thesis is that we're the greatest, by any rational measure, no exceptions. Our election is a dog-eat-dog farce, and since we're the greatest, Finland and Japan are even worse.

I would argue that America is a good country, but far too many Americans insist that it's superior by every rational measure, and that superiority complex prevents us from solving a lot of our problems and drags us down from the top.

I would argue that America is a good country, but far too many Americans insist that it's superior by every rational measure, and that superiority complex prevents us from solving a lot of our problems and drags us down from the top.

You seem to have problems with logic as well (that seems to be a chronic problem with my trolls). The fact that it's superior doesn't make it perfect, and unable to be improved. It's a disaster, in many ways. But it's still better than almost anywhere else on earth, by almost any useful measure. And the kind of "improvements" that Obama and Clinton (and unfortunately, McCain as well, to a lesser degree) want would largely be bugs, not features.

AMC wrote: What if it is precisely the hearing of such rhetoric that convinced Obama for the need to make Unity the focus of his campaign?

That would be a great thing, if it hadn't taken twenty years of listening to it to come to the decision that the remarks made were inflammatory. If it takes that long for Obama to see truth, why would you want him as president with only eight years at most to decide things? I like Obama a lot, but I can't vote for someone who states that racial issues need to be addressed, yet won't address them when coming from the other direction.

The fact that it's superior doesn't make it perfect, and unable to be improved. It's a disaster, in many ways.

As I said, what a bleak view of humanity: The greatest nation on Earth is a disaster.

The reason that the American superiority is so damaging is not that those who espouse it think that America is perfect. On the contrary, they may be quite bitter about America's problems --- they might call it a disaster. No, the problem is that if you think that you're tops, you will have trouble learning anything from other countries. Such Americans are typically baffled and incredulous that anything important ever does go better in other countries, and ultimately they just don't retain the information.

For instance, whereas the US has 300 million people and the EU has 490 million people, the US has more than 2 million people in jail and prison, while the EU has barely 600 thousand people behind bars. Our incarceration rate is five times as high as theirs. If we're the greatest, why do we need to lock up so many people?

Or, to take what you complain about in the next post, it's true that many Hollywood movies have an evil businessman as the villain or anti-hero. But not one of the movies nominated for the foreign-language Oscar in the past three years has that theme. Comparing ourselves to Europe, maybe if fewer Americans thought that the main purpose of life is to make money, they would then be less bitter about the status of the rich?

Moreover, when we think of ourselves as superior, we are more likely to upend countries that we don't really understand in the name of solving their problems, at the expense of tending to our own problems.

For instance, whereas the US has 300 million people and the EU has 490 million people, the US has more than 2 million people in jail and prison, while the EU has barely 600 thousand people behind bars. Our incarceration rate is five times as high as theirs. If we're the greatest, why do we need to lock up so many people?

If it will make you stop whining, I'll declare that the Europeans are much more sensible about drug policy than we are.

Jim says: Moreover, when we think of ourselves as superior, we are more likely to upend countries that we don't really understand in the name of solving their problems, at the expense of tending to our own problems.

Our own problem is knowing that other countries that have an agenda to attack us through manipulation of a terrorist organization deserve to be throttled. As those other countries are also not giving their populace the freedoms that we Americans enjoy, and a large extent of us take for granted. So, yes, we upend countries occasionally, but not at the expense of our own problems, but in the heart of FIXING our problems.

I'll declare that the Europeans are much more sensible about drug policy than we are.

That's a perfectly reasonable answer as far as it goes, but it can't possibly explain a factor of 5 in the incarceration rate. Even if you just take alcohol-related crime --- alcohol is legal and about a third of crime is alcohol-related --- that already gives you more American prisoners than the entire EU prison population, drunk plus sober plus stoned. (And it's not as if the EU has no war on drugs whatsoever.)

Besides, even if the war on drugs were the whole explanation, we certainly wouldn't be "the greatest by any rational measure" if we have such a needlessly large prison population.

So, yes, we upend countries occasionally, but not at the expense of our own problems, but in the heart of FIXING our problems.

That's great, Mac, but we won't fix anyone's problems by sending armies to the other side of the planet, if we don't understand these far-flung countries that we invade. Let's say that a rich and powerful Morocco invaded the Confederacy to bring down slavery. How well would they have done if they had to bring along English translators from Mexico? Obviously they wouldn't know their butts from holes in the ground, even if they did come with good intentions.

Jim says: That's great, Mac, but we won't fix anyone's problems by sending armies to the other side of the planet, if we don't understand these far-flung countries that we invade.

We're fixing OUR problem of having a government that want to kill us by using a terrorist network. So we toppled Saddam and completed that mission. Now, we help them set up a government by doing our best to squelch the terrorists in the country. That fixes their problem. What's to understand? The media reporting from New York say the Iraqis don't like us, but the reporters on the ground in Iraq say they do. What's to understand? Intel on the ground says they are appreciative of what we're doing. What's to understand?

>>Besides, even if the war on drugs were the whole explanation, we certainly wouldn't be "the greatest by any rational measure" if we have such a needlessly large prison population.
No, that's just the point, we are the greatest country on earth, by any rational measure, in spite of this or any or all flaws and failings you may care to list. Some few countries in the world may best in one area or another but they all lag so far behind in all other areas that they can not begin to match us overall. Thus the statement stands as true.