A Few Interesting Points

Continuing on with the Shirley Sherrod story, lets get some comments from Jeffrey Lord (quoted by Brian Beutler at Talking Points Memo), who has come down on Sherrod like a ton of bricks. Apparently a relative was beaten to death with a blackjack for racial reasons which she has described as a lynching. Jeffrey Lord doesn't agree.

Certainly the image in my head of a lynching is rope around the neck," Lord told me. "And when we really got into this, it was quite apparent to me that there was all sorts of other things. That there has to be a mob -- mob action. Well what is a mob? Is it two people? Is it three people?

This is an interesting tack to take. Basically because Sherrod described her relative being beaten to death for being black as a lynching she's a racist.

Beyond that, Lord doesn't understand that Southern Racists were conservatives and after integration they defected to the Republican Party en masse. Or to be more precise he probably does understand it but is pretending not to.

Daily Howler also has some important comments on the Sherrod situation; mostly asking how stupid we liberals are.

Blame Fox News for this whole affair, while underplaying the awkward fact that the Obama Administration and the NAACP reached the same damn-fool conclusion. Insist that this proves that Fox is racist, while failing to mention the gross bad judgment shown by the other two groups.

I wish he were wrong about this, but he's really not.

Values Voters vs. Rude Reporters

For those of you who haven't seen this - at the Values Voters Summit this weekend, both MSNBC and FOX were heckled for rudely broadcasting from the floor of the summit (after being invited). Talking Points Memo has the story.

I find interesting the tag at the end of the FOX heckling - "we want to get the word out; a lot of people are interested in this values voters summit." The phrase we want to get the word out is suggestive to me.

More Myths

Michael Barone's latest article takes on the the difference between Liberal supporters of improving health care and Conservatives supporters of the status quo and tort reform. He determines that Conservatives are better than Liberals through a process I like to call "wishful thinking." Specifically he believes liberals don't really know or care much about health care; they just want to see Obama win one.

I can't help doubting that these activists have given long and deep thought to "government option" health insurance or negotiating, as the Obama White House has, nonaggression pacts with pharmaceutical lobbyists and the like.

They sound much more like a crowd at a stadium, eager for a touchdown and not caring much whether it's accomplished by a quarterback sneak or a runback of a punt.

Of course this is against a backdrop of liberals being very angry with Obama for taking single payer completely off the table and probably removing the Public Option from the bill as well. He contrasts this apparently staunch support for Obama with Republicans who have studied the bill and know what it says.

In contrast, those who are opposed are motivated to show up and express their anger, and in far greater numbers than the hapless Republican Party or the various health insurance companies could ever muster.

Yes, they are motivated to show up and denounce mythological Death Panels and Obama as Hitler. That doesn't necessarily speak to their understanding of the bill; frankly in some cases it looks more like they don't trust or like Obama and want to slam into him.

Oh, and apparently at least one Insurance Company is encouraging its employees to attend the townhalls, according to a post at Talking Points Memo.

The Irony of Reversal

In 2004 we had one candidate who had served valiantly in Vietnam, and another candidate who hadn't and who had to be eager to nullify this advantage. In 2008 we have one candidate who served valiantly in Vietnam and another candidate who hadn't and who has to be eager to nullify this advantage.

In 2004 we had a group come out and tell a lot of phony baloney stories about John Kerry, saying that he wasn't really a war hero. They defamed his character and attacked him viciously. This was all fair play.

In 2008, General Wesley Clark has suggested that, despite his service, Senator John McCain may not be the ideal commander in chief. He made some comments on Face the Nation in regards to John McCain's readiness to serve (to watch the video, via Talking Points Memo, click here). People went crazy about this bizarre attack on the qualifications of a veteran, so he released a press release clarifying his position.

As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.

John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America. But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

This is of course an unprecedented attack on the patriotism of a legitimate war hero. Worthy of discussion for several days. Heck it got so bad, that McCain had to bring in Bud Day, formerly affiliated with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to defend himself.

Of course some niggling nebbishs have pointed out that the attacks of Wesley Clark are far from as personal and nasty as the attacks launched by the Swift Boat Vets. I mean they called into question his service and his honor, saying he hadn't earned his medals and that he was kind of a coward and braggart. They attacked his service directly.

Well the right has an answer to those nebbishs; the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were telling the Truth. They have truth right in their name. Now granted, any reasonable person who looked at the factual claims of the Swift Boat Vets and compared them to the counter evidence would come to the conclusion that the Swift Boat Vets were full of crap. But you aren't one of the reasonable people are you? Of course not.

I suspect this will be a short term issue. I think it's great that Clark is standing up to the attacks, and I agree with him.

Look McCain's service in the military is a mark of courage. It's a mark of character. I can't imagine the torture that McCain went through and chose to stay with to support his fellow troops. It shows character. If we were electing somebody to go to show courage in a prisoner of war camp, I'd elect McCain over Obama in a heart beat.

But you have to look at the full picture. Yes McCain is heroic, yes he loves his country, yes he has great character. But Obama, while not having the same opportunity to prove his physical courage, has shown that he loves his country and that he has great character. And when comparing Obama's judgment to McCain's, well, Obama comes up as a winner, in my opinion.

Manholes are Depressing

Don't believe me? Check out how they are made, according to the New York Times.

The picture is pretty damned convincing all in itself. But not to worry, there's an explanation as to why workers are making manhole covers bare-footed.

Mr. Modi said that his factory followed basic safety regulations and that workers should not be barefoot. “It must have been a very hot day” when the photos were taken, he said.

Isn't every day a hot day when you are working in a foundry?

Story found by the charming folks at Talking Points Memo.

Hardball

According to Talking Points Memo, Jonathan Alter is asking those who failed to override President Bush's veto of Stem Cell Research to sign the following pledge.

“Because of my strong opposition to embryonic-stem-cell research, I hereby pledge that should I, at any point in the future, develop diabetes, cancer, spinal-cord injuries or Parkinson’s, among other diseases, I will refuse any and all treatments derived from such research, at home or abroad, even if it costs me my life. Signed, ______”

I suspect they would sign, take the treatments anyway and then blame it on a family member or staffer. But still a good idea.

How many Muslims do we need to kill before we are safe?

Cal Thomas writes on one of his favorite themes this week; the Muslim Menace. He is taking on the current Republican line on Middle East unrest which is that the problems there go back centuries. TPM Reader DK, filling in at Talking Points Memo, has underlined why the Republicans might be taking this approach.

This sudden embrace of the "long view," as Brooks calls it, is of a piece with the recent claims by some neo-conservatives that there was nothing we could have done to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq given its "coarsened and brittle cultures." Or as Josh paraphrased it: sure, we had a crappy post-war plan in Iraq, but that really didn't matter one way or the other.

While it is true that you can understand little about the Middle East without understanding its history, conservatives have an obvious motive for wanting to compress the last 20-30 years of events in the Middle East. Linking the brutal events of the recent past with the brutal events of today allows them to skip over the fact that real progress toward peace and stability in the region was made in the 1990s, in part due to U.S. leadership and diplomacy. In doing so, I suppose conservatives hope to obscure what a hash they have made of the Middle East in the last 5 years.

That said, it's the standard Cal Thomas Muslim Menace article in another way. He ridicules all possible peaceful resolutions to the crisis and then the article ends. This is typical for Cal Thomas. He presents the problem with Muslims, but leads finding a solution up to his readers (once he has eliminated all peaceful solutions).

I assume this is because his preferred solution is not something he wants in print. But at least some of his readers have suggestions.

Hogrider writes: Give 'em what they want

They state that they prefer death and martyrdom over American guarantees. Give 'em what they prefer, death and martyrdom. What they get in the bargain is the second death which is eternity in the lake of fire.

Everybody says that they don't want war. A certain number of people are lying when they say that.