We Needed Van Jones on the Inside

In March, I wrote here on The Notion in celebration of the appointment of Van Jones . I am both politically committed to and academically interested in issues of environmental justice. Jones' appointment was a clear victory for the EJ movement.

The modern environmental justice movement emerged more than three decades ago. Its fight has been centered on two important issues: the disproportionate impact of local decisions that site polluting industries and undesirable land uses in poor and minority communities, and the damaging health effects of urban pollution on black and brown citizens.

Distinct from the earlier conservation movement, EJ linked environmental injustice to racial injustice. It opened a new era of civil rights activism in many localities and created new Latino, African American, and Native American leaders who became important, if largely unknown, actors in green activism. EJ organizing was often done by ordinary men and women in Southern rural and Northern urban areas. These were not middle-class "race leaders" dictating a particular political agenda, instead these were truly grassroots organizing efforts focused around immediate concerns and readily identifiable problems.

Still, these decentralized movements have not been understood as central to green politics. Conservation and climate-change environmentalism has dominated both federal policy and the national imagination. The local movements were often effective in blocking specific land use decisions, but largely ineffective in creating coherent national policy agendas.

The early months of the Obama administration seemed likely to change that reality. Van Jones embodied a new civil rights agenda combining concerns of racial equality with labor fairness and environmental sustainability. Along with the appointment of Lisa Jackson to head the EPA, it appeared the Obama administration was prepared to elevate environmental justice concerns to equal billing along with climate change environmentalism. It seemed one outcome of this presidency was that black politics was turning green.

There are likely to be real political consequences for the Obama administration as a result of Jones' exit. John Nichols calls it "an unnecessary and unwise surrender." Baratunde Thurston likens it to "negotiating with terrorists." They identify Jones' resignation was hasty, unnecessary, and ultimately more distracting than useful.

But it is not the politics of this episode that trouble me most. I am most concerned with the substantive consequences. The EJ movement was just beginning to gain a foothold in national politics, just beginning to develop a more cohesive and identifiable national platform, and Jones' position within the White House was important to those efforts.

With all due respect to Arianna Huffington who thanks Glenn Beck and welcomes Jones back to the "outside" where his voice will somehow be more effective, I believe this resignation is a kick in the gut to the EJ movement.

Huffington seems to believe Jones will be more effective lobbying for progressive environmental interests from some place other than the West Wing. While I appreciate that Jones is now unfettered from the overly conciliatory Obama administration, this perspective strikes me as hopelessly naïve and stunningly uninformed about the history of environmental justice.

Activism, community organizing, expression of local interests, and development of indigenous leadership has always been where EJ is at its best. In fact, Jones is a latecomer to that activism, not the leader of it. The limitation of the environmental justice movement has been its decentralization, limited policy agenda, and lack of access of government power. EJ critic Christopher Foreman even asserts that grassroots advocacy is the movement's only real accomplishment, claiming it has made no significant policy contributions.

Jones was an important ambassador of EJ to the White House. Not only did his position bring a particular kind of beltway legitimacy to EJ claims, but his presence might have helped close the "green gap" between black American concerns with pollution, land use, and health issues and the broader green movement concerns with global climate change. Linking those initiatives is critical to truly fair and comprehensive policies of sustainability.

Environmental justice advocates have already perfected outsider strategies, we needed Jones on the inside.

Comments (246)

1. This resignation only shows Mr. Obama's wimpiness. Mr. Bush populated his administration with far more extreme ideologues than Van Jones seems to be, and made no apology. Some of Bush's appointees (eg Daniel Pipes, or John Bolton) were so over-the-top crazy as to seem surreal, yet not a single one was resigned.

   Posted by syfriendly at 09/08/2009 @ 11:54am

2. Some of Bush's appointees (eg Daniel Pipes, or John Bolton) were so over-the-top crazy as to seem surreal, yet not a single one was resigned.

   Posted by syfriendly at 09/08/2009 @ 11:54am

   Daniel Pipes never served in the Bush Admin

   Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 11:59am

3. Van Jones is a terrible loss, and it is unfortunate that some Republicans on the far right felt necessary to focus on Van in their staged town hall events. These events are staffed with Freedom Works paid operatives who are directed to disrupt town hall meetings to give the false impression that their right wing views are popular in the community.

   The plain fact is that Beck and Freedom Works' right-wing ideology that pretends that the market can solve everything or help most people all of the time has been tried for the last 30 years since Reagan and has been an unqualified failure. Markets have their place, but certainly are no substitute for the "visible" hand of sound public policy that lifts all boats.

   Poor neighborhoods have always been targets for polluters, and those at the bottom are always the last to participate in any new economic growth sector. Van Jones (and the President) wants to change all that as we promote and develop the green sector of the American economy.

   The Beck's and Freedom Works of the world are free to pretend that global warming does not exist, or that the polar icecaps are not melting or the atmosphere is not thinning. But to target Jones to try to undermine sound public policy that creates a new growing sector of our economy in which all can participate and benefit while we break our addiction to oil is simply wrong-headed and short-sighted.

   In "real" political terms, Van's ideas are here to stay and the Administration will continue to move forward on a number of Van inspired initiatives despite Beck and Freedom Works.

   The message is ALWAYS more powerful than the messenger, and Van's message of environmental justice for all will prevail.

   Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 12:11pm

4. bolton is insane. rove was insane. ashcroft was insane. gonzalez was insane.

   and what about his health and human services guy/gal?

   holy sh*t!!

   Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:11pm

5. Now that he's "unemployed"...

   nothing stopping Mr Jones from appearing on Glenn Beck's show.

   Nothing except Beck is a coward who'd never allow security to let him within the lobby of the Fox News building!

   Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 12:21pm

6. Hi MELISSA!

   I appreciate your perspective, but I don't think you really understand how Van was being used politically by the right, and how that could totally undermine the Administration, including the EJ movement.

   Whether Van is on the inside or outside, his fingerprints are all over a number of large-scale initiatives that will permanently redefine the environmental movement in social justice terms.

   I was probably more pissed than most at Van's dismissal (it actually ruined my Sunday entirely) , but as I said above - the message is ALWAYS more powerful than the messenger.

   When we allow are movements to be too closely identified with or dependent on a single leader, it impairs the sustainability of the movement.

   One of the great tragedies of the civil rights movement is that it was too tied to MLK and Malcolm, so when they were assassinated a lot of air was taken out of the civil rights balloon.

   All movements benefit from articulate, able leaders. But the movements that have legs, build out their leadership more broadly so that the movement becomes part of our consciousness, and is self-sustaining as a result.

   Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 12:21pm

7. What happened?

   1. The President didn't know certain facts about Van Jones when he appointed him. These facts were so embarrassing that, although the President supported Van Jones' views, when his background became public Van Jones had to resign.

   or,

   2. The President didn't know certain facts about Van Jones when he appointed him. These facts were so embarrassing that the President was appalled to learn of them and Van Jones had to resign.

   or,

   3. The President knew about Van Jones' background, but didn't think it would bother anybody. When embarrassing facts became public, the President was surprised by the reaction of the voters and had to ask him to resign.

   or,

   4. The President knew about Van Jones' background, but didn't think it would bother anybody. When embarrassing facts became public, the President was surprised by the reaction of the news media and had to ask him to resign.

   or,

   5. The President knew about Van Jones' background, and knew it would bother the voters, but hoped it would never become public. When embarrassing facts became public, Van Jones had to resign.

   or,

   6. The President knew about Van Jones' background, and knew it would bother the news media, but hoped it would never become public. When embarrassing facts became public, Van Jones had to resign.

   Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 12:36pm

8. Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 11:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

   " ... served as a member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace ..." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes

   " ... Leadership

   The Institute is governed by a bipartisan Board of Directors appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The president and executive officers of the Institute are in turn selected by the Board of Directors. ..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Institute_of_Peace

   Posted by syfriendly at 09/08/2009 @ 12:45pm

9. Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 12:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   The issue at hand is that Mr. Obama is allowing a small handful of vocal crazies, driven into a frenzy by media goons like Beck, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh, to dictate how his administration is staffed, and how his agenda as president and party leader progresses. This is very bad. The POTUS, with complete control of the Congress, is acting like he has no political capital with the public - he has enjoyed huge personal popularity and widespread support for his agenda, as opposed to the last POTUS who was an absolutely hated, crippled lame duck - and the result is going to be bad for everyone. What Obama is proving is that the country is ungovernable if one considers the public interest or common sense and basic morality to be part of governance.

   Posted by syfriendly at 09/08/2009 @ 12:52pm

10. Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 12:36pm

    or,

    7. The President knew certain details about Van's background, but was more interested in his talent and leadership on a wide range of environmental issues, and didn't think the far right distortion machine was so hyped-up about Van that they would make him the centerpiece of their efforts to undermine the Administration through phony paid participants at town hall meetings.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 12:52pm

11. GLENN BECK IS AN AMERICAN TREASURE...HE ALONG WITH MANY OTHER REAL AMERICANS WILL DO ALL WE CAN TO UPROOT THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CZARS BARRY SOTERO HAS APPOINTED.......NEXT ON THE LIST IS VALERIE JARRETT WHO KNEW ALL ALONG WHAT A TOTAL ANTI-AMERICAN FREAK COMMIE JONES WAS...AS WELL AS BARRY AND HIS ANGRY WIFE...

    GO GET EM GLENN...TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE OF THIS INFESTATION!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/08/2009 @ 12:53pm

12. Melissa Harris-Lacewell: "I believe this resignation is a kick in the gut to the EJ movement"...but then she goes on to say..."Activism, community organizing, expression of local interests, and development of indigenous leadership has always been where EJ is at its best."

    --So you want him on the inside or on the outside?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 12:55pm

13. Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 12:36pm

    or,

    7. The President knew certain details about Van's background, but was more interested in his talent and leadership on a wide range of environmental issues, and didn't think the far right distortion machine was so hyped-up about Van that they would make him the centerpiece of their efforts to undermine the Administration through phony paid participants at town hall meetings.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 12:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --which begs the question, if you're right Metteyya, why does Obama roll over like a trained puppy rather than fight?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 12:56pm

14. --which begs the question, if you're right Metteyya, why does Obama roll over like a trained puppy rather than fight?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 12:56pm

    Because he is fighting the GOOD fight - the fight for ideas, which are bigger than any one individual.

    Fighting for Van at the expense of his Administration or even at the expense of the EJ movement that Van is part of is just not wise.

    It is too easy to get caught up in media-generated scorecards that are more personality than idea-based. Let the media have their scorecard, and Obama will continue to keep his own scorecard as his ideals - our progressive ideals - become part of mainstream America.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 1:09pm

15. metteya,

    you forgot one possibility: van jones' ngo color for change fought to have advertisers removed from glenn beck's show (34 in all, a lot of money), and glenn beck retaliated.....

    i think that's the most likely scenario.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 1:13pm

16. Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 12:52pm

    But what is the difference between your option 7 and option 4?

    Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 1:14pm

17. metteyya: "Because he is fighting the GOOD fight - the fight for ideas, which are bigger than any one individual."

    --obama doesn't fight. he makes speeches. and when someone in his admin becomes a liability, he tells them goodbye. we're still in iraq and afghanistan. single payer option is gonna be a joke. but hey, he got a latina on the supreme court! (who's gonna end out being a lot more conservative than he thinks).

    metteyya: "Fighting for Van at the expense of his Administration or even at the expense of the EJ movement that Van is part of is just not wise."

    --sounds defeatist right from the start.

    metteyya: "It is too easy to get caught up in media-generated scorecards that are more personality than idea-based."

    --you mean like The Nation has with at least two blogs on the subject?

    metteyya: "Let the media have their scorecard, and Obama will continue to keep his own scorecard as his ideals - our progressive ideals - become part of mainstream America."

    --what ideals is obama fighting for?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 1:15pm

18. Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 1:13pm

    That may have made it easier, but the real culprit is the same right wing distortion chamber that is behind the healthcare distortions, and they just used Beck as a platform to do their dirty work.

    I don't even think Beck knew who Van Jones was until he was approached by the right wing.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 1:17pm

19. Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 1:13pm

    That may have made it easier, but the real culprit is the same right wing distortion chamber that is behind the healthcare distortions, and they just used Beck as a platform to do their dirty work.

    I don't even think Beck knew who Van Jones was until he was approached by the right wing.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 1:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --what battles will obama be able to win against this vaunted so-called "right wing distortion chamber"?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 1:22pm

20. I don't even think Beck knew who Van Jones was until he was approached by the right wing.---Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 1:17pm

    Probably not.

    Plus Beck is a phoney par excellance. His "I turned against Dubya after 2004" is history revisionism and his claim that "BOTH Parties are bad...don't trust either one" will evaporate as soon as the 2010 GOP Primaries are finished next summer and then...

    never a discouraging word will the "non-partisan" speak of the Repubs until after January 2011.

    Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 1:26pm

21. 9-11 was a Clinton administration and Demoncrat conspiracy, sign not one but two petitions sponsored by so-called 9/11 Truthers, Black people are responsible for all the school shootings, Demoncrats are A-holes, NAACP is responsible for dealing drugs in black neighborhoods, Pres. Obama is a crackhead;

    Yea, I could support unapoligetically someone with those kind of American values as a top administration tool! Then I would be behaving as stupidly as the leftist marxist of this country!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 1:26pm

22. Van Jones is now free to be a stronger voice for the EJ community and economic renovation through Green jobs movement. The antics of the past week of DC insider politics illustrates that once on the inside one is eaten alive perhaps this explains Obama's 180 on climate change and health care reform. Van Jones escaped just in time and we will be the better for it. He has the insight to know that Washington DC politics and the White House flimsy was not something he could stand with. He knows where he is going to be to most effective and it wasn't a desk job at the White House. I would stand with Van Jones anytime, anywhere, to fight for EJ and rail against that which tears our society apart.

    Posted by Ecimino at 09/08/2009 @ 1:26pm

23. >>>--what battles will obama be able to win against this vaunted so-called "right wing distortion chamber"?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 1:22pm <<<

    Obama will win the much greater war of ideas!

    The right-wing does not have ANY ideas, and that is their achilles heal. They are still shouting the same old worn-out mantra from the Reagan years that the market can solve all of our problems.

    We have heard this nonsense for 30 years, and it almost completely destroyed the American financial system last year until Obama took over.

    If you leave greedy bastards to their own devices, without any oversight or regulation, they will take, take, and take, until there is nothing left. <----this is the problem with unfettered markets that no one in the right wing has been able to address.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 1:31pm

24. what battles will obama be able to win against this vaunted so-called "right wing distortion chamber"?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 1:22pm

    metteya: "Obama will win the much greater war of ideas!"

    --giving up "tangible" fights already? president intangibles! he and derek jeter can start recruiting for the intangibles all-stars!

    metteya: "The right-wing does not have ANY ideas, and that is their achilles heal."

    --what ideas does obama have and how will he put them into action?

    metteya: "They are still shouting the same old worn-out mantra from the Reagan years that the market can solve all of our problems. We have heard this nonsense for 30 years, and it almost completely destroyed the American financial system last year until Obama took over."

    --I'll go ahead and borrow from frosty zoom: so saving the american system means bowing to goldman sachs (and other banks, Detroit, big pharma, the medical insurance field, etc)? Oh, and how's the Iraq/Afghanistan pull out going?

    metteya: "If you leave greedy bastards to their own devices, without any oversight or regulation, they will take, take, and take, until there is nothing left. <----this is the problem with unfettered markets that no one in the right wing has been able to address."

    --again, see goldman sachs, et al...what's the big stand obama's taken via oversight and regulation?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 1:45pm

25. In my neighborhood there's a big pit bull that sometimes gets out of its yard and wonders around at it's leisure. I used to have a rottie that was a bit bigger and a bit meaner looking. I definitely felt a lot better when she was inside than when the other was outside...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 1:45pm

26. >>>--what ideals is obama fighting for?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 1:15pm<<<

    He is fighting for many of the same progressive ideals that writers write about in The Nation.

    The difference is that Obama wants these ideals to be MAINSTREAM, and this requires a different non-partisan tone and rhetoric.

    If all you can do is push your agenda in a partisan way, then once you leave office and the other party gets in, then you are just reversed.

    The genius of FDR is he made progressive stuff MAINSTREAM, and we now take for granted many of the FDR-era reforms like Social Security.

    No Republican would ever openly call for an end to Social Security - they just try to undermine it with privatization schemes so they can blame the recipient for losing their retirement in the market.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 1:46pm

27. --what ideals is obama fighting for?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 1:15pm

    metteya: "He is fighting for many of the same progressive ideals that writers write about in The Nation."

    --which ideals would these be specifically?

    metteya: "The difference is that Obama wants these ideals to be MAINSTREAM, and this requires a different non-partisan tone and rhetoric."

    --which ideals would these be specifically?

    metteya: "If all you can do is push your agenda in a partisan way, then once you leave office and the other party gets in, then you are just reversed."

    --hmmm...we're still in both Iraq and Afghanistan; Obama is bowing to Goldman Sachs, Detroit, Big Pharma, Private Medical Insurance, etc...where's the 180 from W's policies?

    metteya: "The genius of FDR is he made progressive stuff MAINSTREAM, and we now take for granted many of the FDR-era reforms like Social Security.'

    --are you implying Obama is on par with FDR?

    metteya: "No Republican would ever openly call for an end to Social Security - they just try to undermine it with privatization schemes so they can blame the recipient for losing their retirement in the market."

    --what's that got to do with Obama? what, a pathetically compromised single-payer option is the next great progressive program like Social Security?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 1:52pm

28. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 1:52pm

    I could be specific, but I won't here.

    I will say that I have seen details of legislation that is already passed and signed by the president that is TOTALLY PROGRESSIVE.

    I'd rather just see this play out rather than get into the details.

    I know some on the left want an in-your-face progressive advocate in the White House, but long-term, sustainable progressive change requires a different approach.

    And, yes, if Obama could have three terms, he would be on par with FDR - and maybe surpass him.

    He's that good!

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 2:00pm

29. 'Obama will win the much greater war of ideas!' -- Metteyya

    'I've always believed that the mind is the best weapon.' -- Sylvester Stallone -- 'Rambo'

    'This appointment makes me think that Obama "gets it" because Van Jones embodies a critically important political strategy for the left.' -- Melissa Harris-Lacewell -- 12 March, 2009 -- The Nation

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/08/2009 @ 2:05pm

30. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 1:52pm

    metteya: "I could be specific, but I won't here."

    --Imagine my complete lack of surprise! The guy killing conservatives for being the party of no ideas won't simply list some "ideals" barack obama stands for...shocking!

    metteya: "I will say that I have seen details of legislation that is already passed and signed by the president that is TOTALLY PROGRESSIVE."

    --specifically? any examples? or is that another thing you could talk about, but "won't here."?

    metteya: "I'd rather just see this play out rather than get into the details."

    --how very Maskian of you! substance be damned!

    metteya: "I know some on the left want an in-your-face progressive advocate in the White House, but long-term, sustainable progressive change requires a different approach."

    --a "don't talk about substance and just wait-and-see" approach?

    metteya: "And, yes, if Obama could have three terms, he would be on par with FDR - and maybe surpass him. He's that good!"

    --what's he done so far on par with FDR? just one thing, not a laundry list of progressive things; just list one...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:08pm

31. 'Obama will win the much greater war of ideas!' -- Metteyya

    'I've always believed that the mind is the best weapon.' -- Sylvester Stallone -- 'Rambo'

    'This appointment makes me think that Obama "gets it" because Van Jones embodies a critically important political strategy for the left.' -- Melissa Harris-Lacewell -- 12 March, 2009 -- The Nation

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/08/2009 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --but HonestLiberal, it's the vast right wing conspiracy and their media attack dogs that just don't fight fair; oh, and it's about the "idea" it's not about the person, so van jones is irrelevant anyway!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:11pm

32. bolton is insane. rove was insane. ashcroft was insane. gonzalez was insane.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:11pm

    I suppose Bolton's "insanity" stemmed from the fact he refused to pretend the U.N. was anything other than the inefficient, ineffective jobs gravy train for the over-educated elite it is. The Soviets used to declare people who just couldn't acknowledge the emperor's fine new clothes to be insane too.

    Meanwhile, we got a guy who was the co-founder of STORM, an organization that declared Mao Tse Tung, one of the worst mass murderers of all time, it's spiritual leader...and there are no charges of insanity to be heard.

    Just a lamentation that this Maoist is no longer influencing how billions of our dollars are spent.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/08/2009 @ 2:11pm

33. bolton is insane. rove was insane. ashcroft was insane. gonzalez was insane.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:11pm

    I suppose Bolton's "insanity" stemmed from the fact he refused to pretend the U.N. was anything other than the inefficient, ineffective jobs gravy train for the over-educated elite it is. The Soviets used to declare people who just couldn't acknowledge the emperor's fine new clothes to be insane too.

    Meanwhile, we got a guy who was the co-founder of STORM, an organization that declared Mao Tse Tung, one of the worst mass murderers of all time, it's spiritual leader...and there are no charges of insanity to be heard.

    Just a lamentation that this Maoist is no longer influencing how billions of our dollars are spent.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/08/2009 @ 2:11pm

34. bolton is insane. rove was insane. ashcroft was insane. gonzalez was insane.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:11pm

    I suppose Bolton's "insanity" stemmed from the fact he refused to pretend the U.N. was anything other than the inefficient, ineffective jobs gravy train for the over-educated elite it is. The Soviets used to declare people who just couldn't acknowledge the emperor's fine new clothes to be insane too.

    Meanwhile, we got a guy who was the co-founder of STORM, an organization that declared Mao Tse Tung, one of the worst mass murderers of all time, it's spiritual leader...and there are no charges of insanity to be heard.

    Just a lamentation that this Maoist is no longer influencing how billions of our dollars are spent.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/08/2009 @ 2:11pm

35. citizen_carrier: what are you going for the triple word score?!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:13pm

36. Obama is the new Abraham Lincoln... conciliatory at all costs, in order to maintain the "peace"; the nation"united" and America "strong"....

    Also, I think it's a bit shortsighted to assume that Jones decided to resign willingly, without "pressure" from the Administration. I've got a bad Clinton taste in my mouth....

    Posted by farout161 at 09/08/2009 @ 2:18pm

37. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:11pm

    Do you honestly think for one moment that Van Jones is more concerned about a government job than his ideas becoming policy?

    Think about it!

    The idea REALLY is bigger than the person.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 2:32pm

38. "I suppose Bolton's "insanity" stemmed from the fact he refused to pretend the U.N. was anything other than the inefficient, ineffective jobs gravy train for the over-educated elite it is"

    of course, it had absolutely nothing to do with this extremely hostile form of "diplomacy," his overt threatening of iran, north korea, iraq, etc, his contemptuous belief in any sort of diplomatic engagement instead of war, and on and on and on...

    yeah, he was just a swell guy....

    "Meanwhile, we got a guy who was the co-founder of STORM, an organization that declared Mao Tse Tung, one of the worst mass murderers of all time, it's spiritual leader...and there are no charges of insanity to be heard."

    yeah, no charges of insanity (see: glenn beck), just an immediate and swift resignation and humilition. that's all. nothing more than that.

    and, hello? i wasn't aware that van jones had a similiar set of obligations as mr. bolton.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 2:37pm

39. So if hsuB had been like Obama, he would've:

    kicked Karl to curb within the 1st year,

    Ruinsfeld year 2,

    dumped cHeney just before his 2nd go'round,

    and been out of Iraq within 2-3 years....

    Yeah, so everyone's agreed that hsuB was a lousy leader, right!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 2:40pm

40. I suppose Bolton's "insanity" stemmed from the fact he refused to pretend the U.N. was anything other than the inefficient, ineffective jobs gravy train for the over-educated elite it is. ----Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/08/2009 @ 2:11pm

    Yet "violating 17 UN resolutions" was one of the reasons given by Bolton's bosses for why we needed to invade Iraq?!???!????

    Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 2:42pm

41. what's he done so far on par with FDR? just one thing, not a laundry list of progressive things; just list one...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:08pm

    1. Increased federal debt enormously.

    2. Appointed big Wall Street people to important positions (remember Joe Kennedy Sr.?)

    3. Made payments to farmers for NOT producing crops.

    4. Blamed the two preceding Presidents for his problems.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 2:44pm

42. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:11pm

    Do you honestly think for one moment that Van Jones is more concerned about a government job than his ideas becoming policy? Think about it! The idea REALLY is bigger than the person.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 2:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --you answer none of my questions and say nothing specific (including above)....you're just platitutdes and generalities. get back to me when you want to bring something to the big boy table...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:46pm

43. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:11pm

    Do you honestly think for one moment that Van Jones is more concerned about a government job than his ideas becoming policy? Think about it! The idea REALLY is bigger than the person.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 2:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --and never mind that I haven't said word one about Van Jones...I'm talking about Barack Obama...I won't hold my breath for you to get "down and dirty" with specifics any time soon...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:48pm

44. Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 2:44pm

    5. Was called a "socialist" by his opponents...who decades later accepted even defended his policies?

    Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 2:48pm

45. So if hsuB had been like Obama, he would've: kicked Karl to curb within the 1st year, Ruinsfeld year 2, dumped cHeney just before his 2nd go'round, and been out of Iraq within 2-3 years.... Yeah, so everyone's agreed that hsuB was a lousy leader, right!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --George W. Bush was a lousy President, but not because he was loyal to his aides. If Obama's expecting some loyalty from this voter, he ought to start getting something done that makes him recognizable from W., cause as of now, they're virtually indistinguishable.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:50pm

46. I suppose Bolton's "insanity" stemmed from the fact he refused to pretend the U.N. was anything other than the inefficient, ineffective jobs gravy train for the over-educated elite it is. ----Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/08/2009 @ 2:11pm

    Yet "violating 17 UN resolutions" was one of the reasons given by Bolton's bosses for why we needed to invade Iraq?!???!????

    Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 2:42pm

    --democrats never have to deal with "political realities" just "reality"!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:52pm

47. what's he done so far on par with FDR? just one thing, not a laundry list of progressive things; just list one... Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:08pm 1. Increased federal debt enormously. 2. Appointed big Wall Street people to important positions (remember Joe Kennedy Sr.?) 3. Made payments to farmers for NOT producing crops. 4. Blamed the two preceding Presidents for his problems.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 2:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --oh, right! I was looking for a progressive to give one "good" thing!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:53pm

48. Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 2:44pm 5. Was called a "socialist" by his opponents...who decades later accepted even defended his policies?

    Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person |

    --anything barack done yet that would qualify?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:55pm

49. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:48pm

    I have the details, but I do not wish to share them on this blog.

    It is clear that there is a concerted effort going on to undermine this president, especially his progressive agenda, and I am not going to furnish any details that could be used in such an effort.

    But the details do exist - just go read the thousands of pages in stimulus-oriented legislation yourself.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 2:56pm

50. Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/08/2009 @ 12:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACKITTY QUACK QUACK!!!!

    ah, the bumper sticker brain of LIBZRMYINELLECTUAL&MORALBETTERS!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/08/2009 @ 2:59pm

51. Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/08/2009 @ 12:53pm

    You are an irritation whom I shall ignore.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/08/2009 @ 2:59pm

52. and, hello? i wasn't aware that van jones had a similiar set of obligations as mr. bolton.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 2:37pm

    Then why did you bring up Bolton in this discussion at all?

    And Mask, violating 17 resolutions is a legitimate reason for the resumption of hostilities (I never considered it a new, preemptive war and hostilities even under Clinton, never ceased). Even if you find the U.N. contemptible, as Bolton did, it does not give the defeated party--Saddam--the right to treat it with equal or greater contempt.

    Saddam waged an aggressive war for the acquisition of territory and lost. Defeated parties can disregard the agreements if they like, but there should be consequences. Had France realized this in the 1930s and took over the Ruhr valley, we wouldn't have lost millions of people in WWII. The U.N. is a joke, but the traditional, understood laws of war are not.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/08/2009 @ 3:00pm

53. and, hello? i wasn't aware that van jones had a similiar set of obligations as mr. bolton.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 2:37pm

    Then why did you bring up Bolton in this discussion at all?

    And Mask, violating 17 resolutions is a legitimate reason for the resumption of hostilities (I never considered it a new, preemptive war and hostilities even under Clinton, never ceased). Even if you find the U.N. contemptible, as Bolton did, it does not give the defeated party--Saddam--the right to treat it with equal or greater contempt.

    Saddam waged an aggressive war for the acquisition of territory and lost. Defeated parties can disregard the agreements if they like, but there should be consequences. Had France realized this in the 1930s and took over the Ruhr valley, we wouldn't have lost millions of people in WWII. The U.N. is a joke, but the traditional, understood laws of war are not.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/08/2009 @ 3:00pm

54. and, hello? i wasn't aware that van jones had a similiar set of obligations as mr. bolton.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 2:37pm

    Then why did you bring up Bolton in this discussion at all?

    And Mask, violating 17 resolutions is a legitimate reason for the resumption of hostilities (I never considered it a new, preemptive war and hostilities even under Clinton, never ceased). Even if you find the U.N. contemptible, as Bolton did, it does not give the defeated party--Saddam--the right to treat it with equal or greater contempt.

    Saddam waged an aggressive war for the acquisition of territory and lost. Defeated parties can disregard the agreements if they like, but there should be consequences. Had France realized this in the 1930s and took over the Ruhr valley, we wouldn't have lost millions of people in WWII. The U.N. is a joke, but the traditional, understood laws of war are not.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/08/2009 @ 3:00pm

55. but van just got smacked by some unfortunately public reactions of his when younger and more foolish.

    pity, but not the end of the world. i'm sure he'll be fine. i'm sure we'll find someone else as qualified and less on the record.

    YAY!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/08/2009 @ 3:01pm

56. metteya: "I have the details, but I do not wish to share them on this blog."

    --George W. Bush before invading Iraq in 2003: you'll have to trust me!

    This is a place to discuss policies and politics...yet you don't want to? Methinks you realize you have no substance to back you up, so you're going with the "I don't wanna talk about it" line...keep playing that card, makes your "points" look strong and your "argument" not weak at all!

    mettaya: "It is clear that there is a concerted effort going on to undermine this president, especially his progressive agenda, and I am not going to furnish any details that could be used in such an effort."

    --oooohhh, another anonymous interweb blog commenter who fancies himself an "insider"! never seen those round these parts before! If this President had a progressive agenda, I'd love to hear who's "undermining" it (besides the usual Fox News, etc suspects)...but since this president doesn't, and since you won't even point out one (yes, 1!) thing that he's done that's "progressive" your statement above clearly is just your dream...

    mettaya: "But the details do exist - just go read the thousands of pages in stimulus-oriented legislation yourself."

    --which I'm sure you've read cover-to-cover...and all other "progressive" laws the president wants to see enacted and enforced...which would be again?...just one (yes, 1!)?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:04pm

57. Along with some other empty gestures, naming Van Jones as a "czar" on green jobs was nothing more than a bone thrown by the Administration to the progressive movement. While Van Jones's work and commitment certainly was serious, for the Administration this always just window dressing. And so when he became a literal black eye, they threw him under the bus... it just wasn't worth the headache for a policy area they weren't seriously committed to. It's quite discouraging because it illustrates what's becoming a pattern with this Administration... from health care to detainee abuse to closing the prison in Guantanamo.

    Posted by rufustarr at 09/08/2009 @ 3:05pm

58. I have discovered the heart of the problem, the logical inconsistency that meant that this situation was foredoomed to disaster. Van Jones was (or said he was) a communist. President Obama appointed him to be Czar. Even the descendants of the Romanovs must be giggling.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 3:05pm

59. Along with some other empty gestures, naming Van Jones as a "czar" on green jobs was nothing more than a bone thrown by the Administration to the progressive movement. While Van Jones's work and commitment certainly was serious, for the Administration this always just window dressing. And so when he became a literal black eye, they threw him under the bus... it just wasn't worth the headache for a policy area they weren't seriously committed to. It's quite discouraging because it illustrates what's becoming a pattern with this Administration... from health care to detainee abuse to closing the prison in Guantanamo.

    Posted by rufustarr at 09/08/2009 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --couldn't agree more rufustarr...since he got the democratic nomination barack's been painted as a progressive's dream...but he's anything but.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:08pm

60. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:04pm

    I am NOT an insider - just an astute political observer.

    And, yes, I am smart enough to know that you are up to no good in trying to get details that can be used against this president.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 3:08pm

61. Posted by rufustarr at 09/08/2009 @ 3:05pm

    This is 100% WRONG!!!

    Van Jones was NOT window dressing, and has already made his mark on a number of key pieces of legislation.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 3:10pm

62. you are up to no good in trying to get details that can be used against this president.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 3:08pm

    Dangerous things, those details.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 3:11pm

63. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:04pm

    I am NOT an insider - just an astute political observer. And, yes, I am smart enough to know that you are up to no good in trying to get details that can be used against this president.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 3:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --what's "astute" about spouting platitudes and generalities without backing them up with statistics and then calling yourself "astute"? it's circular logic there: "I'm astute 'cause I says I am"! ok anonymous interweb blog commenter!

    --and little old me, urmygyro, also an anonymous interweb blog commenter, has the ability to use something another anonymous interweb blog commenter says against the President of the United States? If only!!!!!

    --I wished, when I voted for Barack, just like you did, that he would be liberal and progressive. He's been far from it. For some reason you don't see that (and it's not because you can't, it's because you won't).

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:12pm

64. Posted by rufustarr at 09/08/2009 @ 3:05pm This is 100% WRONG!!! Van Jones was NOT window dressing, and has already made his mark on a number of key pieces of legislation. Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 3:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --but rufustarr, don't you dare ask which "key pieces of legislation"!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:14pm

65. you are up to no good in trying to get details that can be used against this president.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 3:08pm

    Dangerous things, those details.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person |

    --I seem to remember George W. Bush expressing the same exact sentiments metteyya is now to the press throughout his presidency...ignorance is power!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:16pm

66. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:12pm

    Why don't you enter "Metteyya" in The Nation's search window, and then come again - correct this time.

    I am one of the few people on this blog that DOES provide details when they are helpful.

    It is obvious that you want to undermine this president with your red-baiting BS.

    I am just not going for it.

    You guys ran this country into the ground with your free-wheeling, free-market orgy, and now that you have no more toys to play with because of your irresponsibility and recklessness, you want to blame the one person that can get us out of this mess - Obama.

    Alternatively, you want to persuade writers on the left that Obama is not really with them because this advances YOUR agenda, not the progressive movement.

    Good luck with that!

    You may get a few takers here and there, but we know the alternative you offer is worthless to progressives - totally worthless.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 3:21pm

67. -George W. Bush was a lousy President, but not because he was loyal to his aides. If Obama's expecting some loyalty from this voter, he ought to start getting something done that makes him recognizable from W., cause as of now, they're virtually indistinguishable. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:50pm

    Didn't you just do a 360 loop contradicting yourself?

    Reminds me of that image of a circular pencil where the point is stuck in the eraser...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 3:22pm

68. 'I have discovered the heart of the problem, the logical inconsistency that meant that this situation was foredoomed to disaster. Van Jones was (or said he was) a communist. President Obama appointed him to be Czar.' -- Mistral

    Does this mean that Van Jones is now free to lead the Kossacks? I must check DailyKos.

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/08/2009 @ 3:24pm

69. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:12pm

    metteya: "Why don't you enter "Metteyya" in The Nation's search window, and then come again - correct this time."

    --people write "urmy" or "gyro" or "urm" or even misspell my hanlde in any number of ways; I don't take offense to it...not surprised that you are (and it's not like I'm purposely misspelling your handle into an offensive word, i'm forgetting a "y"...so relax, if you can).

    metteya: "I am one of the few people on this blog that DOES provide details when they are helpful."

    --I voted for Barack. He has let me down. If you think he hasn't, please tell me how he hasn't. Be helpful for Barack and help him not lose a voter.

    metteya: "It is obvious that you want to undermine this president with your red-baiting BS."

    --I'm for universal health care; gay marriage, women's choice on abortion, for getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, against capital punishment, etc...

    metteya: "I am just not going for it."

    --you don't have any substance to put forth...but you have plenty of words to all say the same thing "I don't want to say anything"

    metteya: "You guys ran this country into the ground with your free-wheeling, free-market orgy, and now that you have no more toys to play with because of your irresponsibility and recklessness, you want to blame the one person that can get us out of this mess - Obama."

    --you guys? I'm 30 years old; I make less than $40k a year. How does bailing out Goldman Sachs and other banks and Detroit and making deals with Big Pharma and Medical Insurance companies help out the little guy like me?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:31pm

70. "you forgot one possibility: van jones' ngo color for change fought to have advertisers removed from glenn beck's show (34 in all, a lot of money), and glenn beck retaliated.....

    i think that's the most likely scenario"

    Except thats not the timeline at all...Glenn Beck was exposing the ANTI-AMERICAN ASSHOLE JONES weeks before Jones RETALIATED against Beck with the advertisers which by the way are FLOCKING back to Beck because he was RIGHT!!!!

    Wonderful thing about truth...it always seems to shine sunlight on the Marxist LIES AND DISTORTIONS

    Onward to removing Valerie Jarrett...The Next Commie Bitch to fall

    GO GET EM GLENN!!!!

    Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/08/2009 @ 3:31pm

71. Obama couldn't afford to let Van Jones become a distraction at this moment. He isn't important enough to make a stand on.

    But we've gotten to the point where Obama needs to make a stand tomorrow nite. I understand that he is governing in the real world, and he has to make compromises that bloggers do not. He was elected by moderate independents, not progressives. Indeed, he himself has a wide pragmatic streak. But health care is important enough, and if a meaningful line is not drawn, what will get passed not only will not be worth celebrating, but it will not even be worth passing.

    Posted by gren at 09/08/2009 @ 3:34pm

72. metteya: "Alternatively, you want to persuade writers on the left that Obama is not really with them because this advances YOUR agenda, not the progressive movement."

    --My agenda? I didn't know a single voter could have an "agenda" that effects the federal gov't! I have ideas of what I'd like to see...like universal health care; getting our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan; not bailing out big banks from their terrible financial decisions, etc...sounds like my ideas are right in line with The Nation's progressive agenda, no?

    metteya: "Good luck with that!"

    --if what I want to see happens then The Nation would be very pleased, believe me.

    metteya: "You may get a few takers here and there, but we know the alternative you offer is worthless to progressives - totally worthless."

    --what "alternative" am I offering?...what "takers" am I getting, and for what?

    you're not making any sense now...it's no wonder you don't want to get specific!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:41pm

73. me: "George W. Bush was a lousy President, but not because he was loyal to his aides. If Obama's expecting some loyalty from this voter, he ought to start getting something done that makes him recognizable from W., cause as of now, they're virtually indistinguishable." Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:50pm

    hsuBfools: "Didn't you just do a 360 loop contradicting yourself?"

    --I'm fine with you pointing out if I made a contradiction...so where is it?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:45pm

74. >>>Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:31pm

    -I'm for universal health care; gay marriage, women's choice on abortion, for getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, against capital punishment, etc... <<<

    This is the last post...need to get back to work, so don't accuse me of ignoring you.

    1. UHC -Obama is pursuing a practical incremental approach to UHC because he knows he does not have the votes (because of our corrupt pay-to-play culture in Washington) to get single-payer. By driving up the costs of HMOs by forcing them to cover all pre-existing conditions rather than cherry-picking the healthy, evenutally they will find the insurance business much less profitable, leaving the public option, co-op, expanded medicare, or whatever you want to call it, as the ONLY viable option for most people who are not wealthy.

    2. Women's right to Choose -Obama has been a consistent advocate of a woman's right to choose, and has rolled back some of Bush-era policies that restricted the federal government from paying for abortions.

    3. Gay Marriage -Obama has consistently supported civil unions, and anti-discrimination efforts, and generally believes that gays should have the same rights as any other American. He has opposed gay "marriage" on religious grounds, as he believes religions should be able to define "marriage" according to "their" religious beliefs rather than be forced to "marry" people who are gay.

    4. Iraq and Afghanistan -Subject to a vote in Iraq, Obama may actually be pulling out troops in Iraq EARLIER than planned. -Afghanistan is a challenge since the Taliban that hosted bin Laden has re-emerged as a quasi-government force there, and Obama does NOT want it to become a haven for terrorist to attack America. That said, his Afghanistan policy is "evolving"....

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 3:45pm

75. as it is now recognized that serious nation-building activities must occur to build the necessary political and economic infrastructure that would make the Taliban obsolete.

    5. Capital Punishment -Obama was the key person in Illinois that helped roll-back capital punishment there because of the prospect of killing innocent men (who are mostly black). He supports capital punishment only in rare circumstances such as serial killers.

    That's it!

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 3:49pm

76. We have heard this nonsense for 30 years, and it almost completely destroyed the American financial system last year until Obama took over.

    If you leave greedy bastards to their own devices, without any oversight or regulation, they will take, take, and take, until there is nothing left. <----this is the problem with unfettered markets that no one in the right wing has been able to address.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 1:31pm

    1. What day LAST YEAR did Obama take over and why weren't the American people informed?

    2. When did we abolis all Federal regulation and oversight? Can you cite the legislation that did that?

    3. Can you cite the arguments made to the public by the Democrats about this elimination of all regulation and oversight? And if there are no arguments, why didn't they?

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 3:54pm

77. metteya: "1. UHC -Obama is pursuing a practical incremental approach to UHC because he knows he does not have the votes (because of our corrupt pay-to-play culture in Washington) to get single-payer. By driving up the costs of HMOs by forcing them to cover all pre-existing conditions rather than cherry-picking the healthy, evenutally they will find the insurance business much less profitable, leaving the public option, co-op, expanded medicare, or whatever you want to call it, as the ONLY viable option for most people who are not wealthy."

    --I disagree that this so-called "pragmatic" approach is effective...it is just as arguable a way for him to protect his 2nd term; he doesn't have the courage to risk it.

    metteya: "2. Women's right to Choose -Obama has been a consistent advocate of a woman's right to choose, and has rolled back some of Bush-era policies that restricted the federal government from paying for abortions."

    --link/citation? besides, this isn't progressive, this is just taking us back to before a terrible president. the supreme court has already ruled on this long ago.

    metteya: "3. Gay Marriage -Obama has consistently supported civil unions, and anti-discrimination efforts, and generally believes that gays should have the same rights as any other American. He has opposed gay "marriage" on religious grounds, as he believes religions should be able to define "marriage" according to "their" religious beliefs rather than be forced to "marry" people who are gay."

    --civil marriages have nothing to do with religion...being against gay marriage is equivalent to gay bashing...civil unions are only acceptable if civil marriages are ended and they are all called "civil unions"..."separate but equal", as usual, takes no guts; and it's certainly not progressive.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:55pm

78. metteya: "4. Iraq and Afghanistan -Subject to a vote in Iraq, Obama may actually be pulling out troops in Iraq EARLIER than planned. -Afghanistan is a challenge since the Taliban that hosted bin Laden has re-emerged as a quasi-government force there, and Obama does NOT want it to become a haven for terrorist to attack America. That said, his Afghanistan policy is "evolving"...."

    --evolving? there's little difference from Bush. I'll believe Iraq is over when I see it. Not progressive in the least to leave military in both places to ensure our interests are protected.

    "5. Capital Punishment -Obama was the key person in Illinois that helped roll-back capital punishment there because of the prospect of killing innocent men (who are mostly black). He supports capital punishment only in rare circumstances such as serial killers."

    --so he still supports capital punishment! how progressive!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:57pm

79. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:57pm

    Did you really think Obama was a progressive when you voted for him?

    Posted by !immutable at 09/08/2009 @ 4:13pm

80. Urmy asked you to substantiate your claim that Obama has already SIGNED progressive legislation

    <2. Women's right to Choose -Obama has been a consistent advocate of a woman's right to choose, and has rolled back some of Bush-era policies that restricted the federal government from paying for abortions.>

    Please cite the bill that overturned the Hyde Amendment which has been US law since 1976?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

    <3. Gay Marriage -Obama has consistently supported civil unions, and anti-discrimination efforts, and generally believes that gays should have the same rights as any other American. He has opposed gay "marriage" on religious grounds, as he believes religions should be able to define "marriage" according to "their" religious beliefs rather than be forced to "marry" people who are gay.>

    Please cite the EO's or legislation that Obama has signed reversing or changing Federal law including DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). In point of fact, the Obama Admin recently defended against Gay Marriage in court citing DOMA.

    <4. Iraq and Afghanistan -Subject to a vote in Iraq, Obama may actually be pulling out troops in Iraq EARLIER than planned. -Afghanistan is a challenge since the Taliban that hosted bin Laden has re-emerged as a quasi-government force there, and Obama does NOT want it to become a haven for terrorist to attack America. That said, his Afghanistan policy is "evolving".....>

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 3:45pm

    4. Please cite one "progressive" change that Obama has made regarding either Iraq or Afghanistan?

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 4:14pm

81. what's he done so far on par with FDR? just one thing, not a laundry list of progressive things; just list one...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:08pm

    1. Increased federal debt enormously.

    2. Appointed big Wall Street people to important positions (remember Joe Kennedy Sr.?)

    3. Made payments to farmers for NOT producing crops.

    4. Blamed the two preceding Presidents for his problems.

    Posted by Mistral at 09/08/2009 @ 2:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    But, somehow, FDR got 4 trips to the Oval Office.

    Now, THAT'S a politician!

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/08/2009 @ 4:17pm

82. And, they both smoke!

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/08/2009 @ 4:19pm

83. 1.Equal-Pay Legislation 2.National Service Legislation 3.S-CHIP Legislation 4.Credit-Card Overhaul Legislation

    Posted by !immutable at 09/08/2009 @ 4:21pm

84. Oops, sorry, should have used line breaks.

    1.Equal-Pay Legislation

    2.National Service Legislation

    3.S-CHIP Legislation

    4.Credit-Card Overhaul Legislation

    Posted by !immutable at 09/08/2009 @ 4:23pm

85. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:57pm Did you really think Obama was a progressive when you voted for him? Posted by !immutable at 09/08/2009 @ 4:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --yes, I thought he would be quite liberal...sad to see he's not.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 4:28pm

86. "1.Equal-Pay Legislation"

    --what specifically?

    "2.National Service Legislation"

    --what specifically?

    "3.S-CHIP Legislation"

    --I don't know what that is

    "4.Credit-Card Overhaul Legislation"

    --like 25% the max interest? have to be 16 to get one?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 4:31pm

87. Afghanistan is a challenge since the Taliban that hosted bin Laden has re-emerged as a quasi-government force there, .. Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 3:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    ahem. the Taleban WERE the gov't until the US initiated and financed regime change. they are still the gov't in much of the country.

    good exchange with the sandwich.

    Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 4:35pm

88. "1.Equal-Pay Legislation"

    --what specifically?

    The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act expands workers' rights to sue for equal pay.

    "2.National Service Legislation"

    --what specifically?

    Offers money as an educational stipend to students for volunteering for community service.

    "3.S-CHIP Legislation"

    --I don't know what that is

    Provides healthcare to low-income children.

    "4.Credit-Card Overhaul Legislation"

    --like 25% the max interest? have to be 16 to get one?

    This alone makes it worth it

    "Banks will have to wait 60 days before raising the rate on late-paying customers, and they will be required to reinstate the old rate once the cardholder makes payments on time for six months."

    Posted by !immutable at 09/08/2009 @ 4:44pm

89. This may help you see the 360 loop better--

    So if hsuB had been like Obama, he would've:

    kicked Karl to curb within the 1st year,

    Ruinsfeld year 2,

    dumped cHeney just before his 2nd go'round,

    and been out of Iraq within 2-3 years....

    Yeah, so everyone's agreed that hsuB was a lousy leader, right!Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 2:40pm

    George W. Bush was loyal to his aides...

    Obama... ought to start getting something done that makes him recognizable from W.,

    ...they're virtually indistinguishable. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:50pm

    Didn't you just do a 360 loop contradicting yourself? Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 3:22pm

    --I'm fine with you pointing out if I made a contradiction...so where is it?Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:45pm

    It's extremely obvious that hsuB did not do what Obama just did! And you even say that, but then say that they are indistinguishable!?!?!

    So if this very simple distinction isn't considered a distinction, how many more won't be either?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 4:47pm

90. Posted by !immutable at 09/08/2009 @ 4:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --thank you for the information!

    although re: credit card companies, not even close enough to getting them straight.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 4:50pm

91. It's extremely obvious that hsuB did not do what Obama just did! And you even say that, but then say that they are indistinguishable!?!?!

    So if this very simple distinction isn't considered a distinction, how many more won't be either?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --I guess you should focus less on the copy-and-paste of a conversation we already had and read the conversation! I already said bush is not like obama (in this instance with jones) in that he was loyal to his aides: my issue is they are virtually indistinguishable when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama ran on change: we're still there; and I don't believe we'll be outta there (timetable talk is just that) until I see it: that's how they're the same. Obama's just carrying on what Bush started.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 4:54pm

92. Hey Urmy and everyone else on this thread, chill out, it has only been 9 monthes, give the guy a little time, got ants in your pants or what? Urmy, you are a pain in the butt, always getting on someones case about whatever, demanding answers, what is your problem? Sheesh, you guys, CHILL.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/08/2009 @ 4:56pm

93. "Then why did you bring up Bolton in this discussion at all? "

    because mr. bolton had more responsibility, but still remained in office throughout bush's two terms.

    mr. jones was a low-level staffer, with far less responsibility.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 4:57pm

94. Hey Urmy and everyone else on this thread, chill out, it has only been 9 monthes, give the guy a little time, got ants in your pants or what? Urmy, you are a pain in the butt, always getting on someones case about whatever, demanding answers, what is your problem? Sheesh, you guys, CHILL.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/08/2009 @ 4:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --who died and made you board moderator?

    --and writing CHILL in all caps is like yelling 'RELAX' at someone; like that will actually get them to relax.

    --lastly, denise29, you never have anything substantive to say to me, all you ever say is "I don't like what you have to say urmygyro"...don't you see you're behaving in the same manner you say I shouldn't? if you don't like what I'm saying, ignore it, or counter it, rather than just complain about it---"Sheesh....CHILL!"

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 5:14pm

95. "Then why did you bring up Bolton in this discussion at all? " because mr. bolton had more responsibility, but still remained in office throughout bush's two terms. mr. jones was a low-level staffer, with far less responsibility. Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --so then what do you care if he's gone?

    --conversely, if he was truly important, why did barack not keep him on board?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 5:15pm

96. (to metteya)...

    you're not making any sense now...it's no wonder you don't want to get specific!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 3:41pm

    Most of your so-called progressive cohorts/loonies, are incoherent today....beside themselves trying to justify the bloated Kool-aid still in their system....can't wee-wee it out...too painful....LMAO!

    Posted by Happy at 09/08/2009 @ 5:25pm

97. MH-L: "Its fight has been centered on two important issues: the disproportionate impact of local decisions that site polluting industries and undesirable land uses in poor and minority communities, and the damaging health effects of urban pollution on black and brown citizens."

    Let's take the steel industry...say in Pittsburg during their glory days of the late 60s' and early 70s'....

    Were the plants sited along the Three Rivers because the poor blacks lived there or because there are, ahem, 3 rivers converging there which make transport of coal, iron ore, finished steel...CONVENIENT?

    What happens after a plant-dirty, clean, smelly, noisy...doesn't matter-goes up in the middle of nowhere where land is cheap (BTW, this basic law of siting plants of any scale apply, forever) and a highway or two, or rail spurs, or deep-water port are nearby? Do the rich flock to live near the plant(s) or the worker bees and their hangers-on?

    To state, as ML-H does, and VJ does, that the blacks are oh, so `concerned' with urban pollution is about the most laughable thing I've heard in years!

    I've rented quite a few times to black tenants.....more than a few of them generated enough `pollution' to puke everybody out on this blog!

    Question your premises.....Mr. & Ms. EJ warriors of the black persuasion!

    Posted by Happy at 09/08/2009 @ 5:35pm

98. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 4:54pm

    URMYGYRO,

    If you read ANTISOCIALIST's post above (antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 4:14pm), it is clear that the Republican strategy is to try to create DISAFFECTION among the left with the "OBAMA IS NO DIFFERENT THAN BUSH" line, and HATRED AND FEAR on the right and center with the "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST WHO WANTS THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE OVER EVERYTHING" line.

    The IRONY is that they "both" can NOT be true!

    So if you really are as progressive as you pretend to be, you really need to stop enabling the right wing to cause disaffection on the left.

    Otherwise, we end up with SARAH PALIN in 2012, and how do you think that will help the progressive cause?

    This does NOT mean you can't criticize Obama - even I criticize his decisions on occasion - but it does mean you have to pay attention to how you are being used by the right wing to undermine the progressive agenda.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 6:11pm

99. Posted by Happy at 09/08/2009 @ 5:35pm

    HAP,

    This is a PLAINLY racist post and should be removed!

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 6:20pm

100. Have a question. Which came first the glacier or the ground underneath it? When a glacier melts and exposes the ground underneath it, is it new ground? Ground that is seeing sunlight for the very first time? We live on a 'living' planet. Made with fire and it will be destroyed with fire. We are comparing a brief history to 1000's of years that have not been documented. Of course you can read the Farmer's Almanac and read about snow events in July. Where was summer this year? Soon I will be shoveling my global warming. I hope it's not as deep as the views of the loons that believe it. When one is absent of God he chooses something else to worship.

     Posted by ruffsdale at 09/08/2009 @ 6:22pm

101. metteya: "If you read ANTISOCIALIST's post above (antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 4:14pm), it is clear that the Republican strategy is to try to create DISAFFECTION among the left with the "OBAMA IS NO DIFFERENT THAN BUSH" line, and HATRED AND FEAR on the right and center with the "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST WHO WANTS THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE OVER EVERYTHING" line."

     --obama's not a socialist...he's much, much closer to George W. Bush.

     metteya: "The IRONY is that they "both" can NOT be true!"

     --of course not; Obama's not a socialist; he's much, much closer to George W. Bush.

     metteya: "So if you really are as progressive as you pretend to be"

     --"pretend to be"?; your "loaded" language is sad...all the things I've said I'm for I'm for...they are very progressive ideas.

     metteya: "you really need to stop enabling the right wing to cause disaffection on the left."

     --I'm not enabling the right to do anything. I'm calling it like I see it: and Obama is doing a terrible job.

     metteya: "Otherwise, we end up with SARAH PALIN in 2012, and how do you think that will help the progressive cause?"

     --that's not the only other option. we could also end out with a barack obama who governs more progressively...your types never think of that.

     metteya: "This does NOT mean you can't criticize Obama"

     --yeah, I don't need your permission, but clearly you feel the need to "give it"

     metteya: "even I criticize his decisions on occasion"

     --name one.

     metteya: "but it does mean you have to pay attention to how you are being used by the right wing to undermine the progressive agenda."

     --you should put your tinfoil hat on just in case THEY are watching....end communication.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 6:23pm

102. Posted by ruffsdale at 09/08/2009 @ 6:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     what the hell is that?

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 6:37pm

103. Posted by ruffsdale at 09/08/2009 @ 6:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     what the hell is that? Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 6:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --a thoughtful and creative post about "global warming" that unsurprisingly flew right over your pea-brain!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 6:40pm

104. And why was the black Jones squeezed out? -- Why? "SHOWS THE VICIOUS RIGHT WING POWER TO GUT PROGRESSIVE AGENDA, one TV pundit proclaimed. Angrily feigned stupidity

     And did sweet mommy Melissa just overlook this point? I mean, for such a fine example of progressive break through blacks-for-green to get shoved out the door ought to have a reason, oughtn't it? Something pretty substantial? Even worth commenting on with an 'irony' or two thrown in to sign off on the -- sigh -- unpleasant affair. Thankfully he wasn't the real grassroots soul fire of the grassroots osse, only a useful moron to have inside, and on and on...and on...over that bridge to nowhere, and you can see China from there, too.

     I wonder what in the world could have shut him up, driven him out? Such a fine thing to have broken up/ My desire -- no, PASSION! is to know WHAT COULD IT HAVE BEEN? WHO OR WHAT GAVE THOSE RIGHT WING LUNATIC EXTREMIST FRINGE LATENT TIMOTHY McVEIGH DOMESTIC TERRORIST RON PAUL WORSHIPPING GUN NOT TYPES THE POWER TO MAKE WEAKLING LITTLE STICK MAN OBAMAMA FORCE A BRO OFF THE DANCEFLOOR?

     WHAT?! ? !? ! So screams my brain pitylessly, unceasingly, can't sleep, work, eat, screw, nothing until I know.

     I've got it. I'm going to researh the blog posts here, and elsewhere, to see if maybe -- just maybe; I know, I know, its about as absurd as a long shot as having one of them actually connent of Sonia Sodomayor making 6-out-of-9 Roman Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court -- one of the more astute and savvy racanteurs might have revealed the answer to this secret of why Van Jones got canned. This shouldn't take long. I'll be back. ...

     Posted by jones at 09/08/2009 @ 6:43pm

105. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 6:23pm

     You really can't fool me....

     I KNOW the Republicans tell their operatives to go out on liberal blogs and say they voted for Obama and believe in "progressive" issues -which are usually the hot-button divisive issues that Republicans want to run on like gay marriage, abortion, etc. - and constantly try to make the case that Obama is no different than Bush.

     It is part of the Republican plan:

     Cause DISAFFECTION on the left, and FEAR and HATRED in the center and on the right.

     The problem is they have to talk out both sides of their mouth to pull this strategy off, and they need a progressive base that is not very politically sophisticated.

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 6:49pm

106. metteya: "You really can't fool me...."

     --code for: you've made up your mind and you won't listen to reason.

     metteya: "I KNOW the Republicans tell their operatives to go out on liberal blogs and say they voted for Obama and believe in "progressive" issues -which are usually the hot-button divisive issues that Republicans want to run on like gay marriage, abortion, etc. - and constantly try to make the case that Obama is no different than Bush."

     --ah, you're one of those, I see. well, this is an anonymous interweb blog comment section, so you're gonna believe what you want...but clearly anonymous interweb blog comment sections are where all the political action happens! no self-delusion there...

     metteya: "It is part of the Republican plan: Cause DISAFFECTION on the left, and FEAR and HATRED in the center and on the right. The problem is they have to talk out both sides of their mouth to pull this strategy off, and they need a progressive base that is not very politically sophisticated."

     --I'm disaffected by Obama's lack of effectiveness in office, big time. He ran on CHANGE. Must've heard that word about a million times last summer and fall. I haven't seen real change. I'm not scared or fearful of Obama; I'm disappointed (or "disaffected" as you want to say). Like most politicians, he talks out of both sides of his mouth--in his case: out of he left side of his mouth pre-November, and out of the center/right side of his mouth now that he's in power.

     All of your conspiracy theories are the true distraction. I want a progressive President. Obama ain't it. It's sad.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 6:58pm

107. This is a PLAINLY racist post and should be removed!

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 6:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Another denier of logic, historical facts, and situational truths plays the race card. We are somehow not anymore impressed than ever!

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 6:59pm

108. HAP,

     This is a PLAINLY racist post and should be removed!

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 6:20pm

     You mean I am a racist for renting to blacks? Their green, even coming from Sec. 8, are good as any whites or other races!

     Posted by Happy at 09/08/2009 @ 7:05pm

109. If you read ANTISOCIALIST's post above (antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 4:14pm), it is clear that the Republican strategy is to try to create DISAFFECTION among the left with the "OBAMA IS NO DIFFERENT THAN BUSH" line, and HATRED AND FEAR on the right and center with the "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST WHO WANTS THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE OVER EVERYTHING" line.

     The IRONY is that they "both" can NOT be true!

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 6:11pm |

     I realize that being honest and owning up to your hyperbole is tough, but try, you can do it.

     I merely asked you to substantiate YOUR claim that Obama has already signed progressive legislation on these issues. Instead of responding, you use my post to suggest that Republicans are trying to "disaffect" the left with Obama.

     First of all, I have no idea what the Republicans are saying about Obama. I'm still waiting for a true conservative Republican to come along worth listening to.

     To repeat, I asked you to substantiate your claim; All you have to do is prove yourself right or admit you were wrong. Much easier than engaging in strawman tactics.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 7:07pm

110. It is part of the Republican plan:

     Cause DISAFFECTION on the left, and FEAR and HATRED in the center and on the right.

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 6:49pm

     You're right.....we bought and paid for Magic to turn his back on `progressives' like you...just for the fun of it and for Rush to really turn his big guns on a....OMG, black man!

     Posted by Happy at 09/08/2009 @ 7:08pm

111. It is clear that Van Jones has been rejected by majority opinon for his racist hate filled dialouge, race baiting attitudes, unamerican marxist lenin politics, delusionary assersions etc.; All that was done was to repeat verbatum exactly what he has said and represents!

     Like I said facetiously;

     9-11 was a Clinton administration and Demoncrat conspiracy, sign not one but two petitions sponsored by so-called 9/11 Truthers, Black people are responsible for all the school shootings, Demoncrats are A-holes, NAACP is responsible for dealing drugs in black neighborhoods, Pres. Obama is a crackhead;

     Yea, I could support unapoligetically someone with those kind of American values as a top administration tool! Then I would be behaving as stupidly as the leftist marxist of this country!

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 7:10pm

112. This is a PLAINLY racist post and should be removed!

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 6:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Another denier of logic, historical facts, and situational truths plays the race card. We are somehow not anymore impressed than ever!

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 6:59pm

     Metteyya is the kind of Lib who wouldn't dare to deal with lower-income blacks....would be petrified to be their landlord and have to, shit, collect rent and enter their dens to fix shits they broke themselves or haven't the foggiest ideas to fix....like a leaking toilet tank stopper and a clogged up dryer lint filter.

     It's just a fact and 30+ years of experience....for most lower-level blacks, it takes more work & EDUMYCATION....I always leave them several A/C filters since they hardly EVER BUY replacements once the initial one is clogged up, bulging inward circulating absolutely NO air....and they complain the A/C isn't cooling.....just the typing of this raises my blood pressure.....and makes me less than HAPPY!

     Posted by Happy at 09/08/2009 @ 7:12pm

113. To repeat, I asked you to substantiate your claim; All you have to do is prove yourself right or admit you were wrong. Much easier than engaging in strawman tactics.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 7:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --antisocialist, I wish I could agree, but for some, like metteya it's much easier to use the strawman or to simply say "I won't talk about that here" because they don't actually have anything substantive to say.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 7:13pm

114. urmygyro, you just want to get on everyones case, I'm not the only on here who sees it, you call yourself a progressive? Well I call myself a progressive also, and I say give Obama a chance like the people on the right gave Bush, OK? All I hear you do is rag on our Prez along with a lot of other people I might add. Its been 9 monthes, could you possibily give him a little more time? You act like you have the attention span of a gnat.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/08/2009 @ 7:13pm

115. urmygyro, you just want to get on everyones case, I'm not the only on here who sees it, you call yourself a progressive? Well I call myself a progressive also, and I say give Obama a chance like the people on the right gave Bush, OK? All I hear you do is rag on our Prez along with a lot of other people I might add. Its been 9 monthes, could you possibily give him a little more time? You act like you have the attention span of a gnat.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/08/2009 @ 7:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --All I see you do is rag on me ragging on the faux-progressive President Obama. I've seen you make the same complaints about me over and over...I get how you feel about me...you can move on now; talk to other people...or do you forget that you post essentially the same thing to me over and over...as if you have the attention span of a gnat?

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 7:16pm

116. Oh right and you are sooooo substantive, I'd have to agree with metteya and say that you talk out of both sides of your mug. How old are you? You don't act very old. You expect change yesterday, It took bush 8 years, but you want Obama to have corrected everything NOW. It doesn't happen that way, especially in Washington.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/08/2009 @ 7:20pm

117. A different perspective: it is not necessarily the poorest, or blackest areas that get the crap, it is areas that lack the leverage from having two competitive political parties.

     Posted by balataf at 09/08/2009 @ 7:22pm

118. Oh right and you are sooooo substantive, I'd have to agree with metteya and say that you talk out of both sides of your mug. How old are you? You don't act very old. You expect change yesterday, It took bush 8 years, but you want Obama to have corrected everything NOW. It doesn't happen that way, especially in Washington.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/08/2009 @ 7:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --oh, are you still clucking? time to go sit on some eggs...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 7:23pm

119. Would any of you on the right or the left arguing over whether Van Jones is a Marxist or not, or whether he had/has power in the Obama administration, or whether he will be more influential inside or outside the White House, please trace and comment on where he got his money during his career and from where he will now get paid . Just a quick look at Van Jones on his website will reveal monetary awards from a foreign oligarch, George Soros, and the Rockefeller, Ford and Tides Foundations and other foundations in their orbit. Clearly Van Jones is not a "community organizer". Does this pay for his green/black nationalist activism mean something? I have my opinion (posted on other blogs) but I would like to know yours.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 7:28pm

120. Would any of you on the right or the left arguing over whether Van Jones is a Marxist or not, or whether he had/has power in the Obama administration, or whether he will be more influential inside or outside the White House, please trace and comment on where he got his money during his career and from where he will now get paid . Just a quick look at Van Jones on his website will reveal monetary awards from a foreign oligarch, George Soros, and the Rockefeller, Ford and Tides Foundations and other foundations in their orbit. Clearly Van Jones is not a "community organizer". Does this pay for his green/black nationalist activism mean something? I have my opinion (posted on other blogs) but I would like to know yours.

     Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 7:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --yeah, it means he's just like virtually everyone else in power: corporate sponsors have a stake in who he is.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 7:31pm

121. A different perspective: it is not necessarily the poorest, or blackest areas that get the crap, it is areas that lack the leverage from having two competitive political parties.

     Posted by balataf at 09/08/2009 @ 7:22pm

     Sooooo....that explains why all the plants are shutting down and moving from Michigan, California, New Jersey......wow, guess that must mean all the poor blacks can really be HAPPY looking forward to clean air! I am rolling on the floor with envy!

     Posted by Happy at 09/08/2009 @ 7:33pm

122. A different perspective: it is not necessarily the poorest, or blackest areas that get the crap, it is areas that lack the leverage from having two competitive political parties.

     Posted by balataf at 09/08/2009 @ 7:22pm Sooooo....that explains why all the plants are shutting down and moving from Michigan, California, New Jersey......wow, guess that must mean all the poor blacks can really be HAPPY looking forward to clean air! I am rolling on the floor with envy!

     Posted by Happy at 09/08/2009 @ 7:33pm | ignore this person |

     --the auto bailouts prevented detroit from becoming paradise!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 7:37pm

123. Hey, OneVote.....

     Made my second offer on a property in Orlando today. Lost out on the first one I chased back in early July...not on price, I was higher, but beaten to the punch by a couple of days.

     Give you folks an idea of magical `deals' (thanks to Barney F. & Chris D.) ....the old house sitting on a valuable lot sold in 2002 for over $160k....my offer today is $62k and asking price is under $70k! I intend to tear the house down.

     Posted by Happy at 09/08/2009 @ 7:37pm

124. i'm sure we'll find someone else as qualified and less on the record.

     YAY!!!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/08/2009 @ 3:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person *** Best I could find. There were the points Mistral commented on mentioning "certain details", "certain facts", "background" so embarassing it prompted seven (7) alternative explanations of why Van Jones was severed.... under a heading of "What happened" -- strongly intimating, in my opinion, that what was undwer discussiong was, in fact, the reason he was disassociated from the Obama Administration. Am I off track here?

     ***

     I don't think so. I think NO ONE (as in "0", used for a number sign, however metaphysically incorrect) here has given one one single thought, much less any real consideration of the implications, to why Mr. Van Jones, the Black man for EP, finds himself outside, now.

     Zero is the number => Grade for the this hostile-to-Israel intellectual lameness.

     I'll let this sink in to see if there is any response before coming back with THE SECRET. (Yes, there is a reason Mr. Van Jones walked the plank, Obamamacarebots --and black flag 'libzRfreaks' anti's. Yes, all you doubters in True Belief! -- there IS truth! You could call it God, if you want, bit that would be ironic.

     I'll be back with what it is. Meanwhile, you could consult Luke 10.18 (Aramaic word for "lightening" is BARAQ"; for "heavan" BAHMA).

     Posted by jones at 09/08/2009 @ 7:37pm

125. One way of looking at it is that Obama is not a chip on the shoulder person and genuinely believes the best about people. That might make him politically naive but the only crime in that is the time and effort wasted in removing duds and looking for replacements.

     Perhaps once he found out Jones was, by implication, a 911 conspiracy theory nutter he cut him adrift. Even naive politicians are likely to see that progressive nutters are no more useful in formulating policy than conservative nutters.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 09/08/2009 @ 7:42pm

126. Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 7:07pm

     You know that I am able to substantiate my claim if you look at my track record on these blogs throughout the election, but you also know that your real objective is to try to get more ammunition to make the case that OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST.

     I won't play that game.

     Let's do the opposite: Obama is like Bush, and his legislation will only help the wealthiest Americans!

     Heheh

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 7:50pm

127. metteya: "your real objective is to try to get more ammunition to make the case that OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST. I won't play that game."

     --neither will obama.

     metteya: "Let's do the opposite: Obama is like Bush, and his legislation will only help the wealthiest Americans!"

     --bailouts for the little guy! troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for the little guy! bastardized single-payer options for the little guy!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 7:59pm

128. You know that I am able to substantiate my claim if you look at my track record on these blogs throughout the election, but you also know that your real objective is to try to get more ammunition to make the case that OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST.

     I won't play that game.

     Let's do the opposite: Obama is like Bush, and his legislation will only help the wealthiest Americans!

     Heheh

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 7:50pm

     You are game playing instead of being honest. You made very specific statements and now you refuse to provide any substantiation.

     You are merely using a copout argument to avoid being honest.

     That is your problem not mine.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 8:03pm

129. You are game playing instead of being honest. You made very specific statements and now you refuse to provide any substantiation. You are merely using a copout argument to avoid being honest. That is your problem not mine.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 8:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --metteya doesn't hold herself to the same standard she expects of others...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 8:07pm

130. metteya doesn't hold herself to the same standard she expects of others...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 8:07pm

     I appreciate an honest debate even where there is no possibility of agreeement. However, some on both the left and the right need to learn what honest debate really means.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 8:09pm

131. Posted by balataf at 09/08/2009 @ 7:22pm Sooooo....that explains why all the plants are shutting down and moving from Michigan, California, New Jersey......

     Posted by Happy at 09/08/2009 @ 7:33pm | ignore this person |

     What is this, 1979????

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/08/2009 @ 8:12pm

132. Unemployment is high. Manufacturing jobs have declined in many areas. Economic recovery is likely to be slow, with little job growth. Many dream of the days when a high school dropout could get a job at "the factory" for $28/hr with full benefits. So, we need to re-energize the manufacturing sector. This is the dream. And now, with the full support of the administration, we bring you (drum roll please), Ron Bloom, Czar for Manufacturing Policy. A career as an Investment Banker and an adviser to the USW union, specializing in bankruptcy mergers and acquisitions. Your future and hope for big dollar low skill jobs is in his hands! I guess we'll card check our way to a bright future. I wonder if he'll be working with the Pay Czar and the Diversity Czar?

     Posted by sntauri at 09/08/2009 @ 8:35pm

133. Enviromental justice?

     What a great name designed to instill confidence in ...nothing...

     Jones never created anything, ran anything, manufactured anything of any color muchless green, never made a pay roll or created one item of value in the real world outside of leftist rhetoric and sloaneering....as in....

     "Green Czar"...getting our green.

     He is a perfect resume for anything and everything far left and useless except on college campii...or this WH...and Jones is just the tip of the incompetent but expensive iceberg...

     His credentials are rampant in todays govt...

     People who have created or contributed nothing but ideas on how to spend other peoples money better than those who earn it...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 09/08/2009 @ 9:29pm

134. "9-11 was a Clinton administration and Demoncrat conspiracy, sign not one but two petitions sponsored by so-called 9/11 Truthers."

     Weirdly stated, but that's it. Van Jones was on the side of 911 truth. That's why he was axed. Right wing extremists? - yew bet.

     And if the truth is that the official story of 911 is a lie? Well, how ironic would that be, my word. The black green man gets canned for believing the truth. But he doesn't really stand up for it any more than John Kerry stood behind his rejection of the Vietnam war. It's them damn right wing nut extremists, yew bet (slide pic of Beck in here, with Olberman literally squawking like a deranged idiot in the background -- MSNBCleftist role model heroes, yew bet, just like Obama passionately called for, today). (in case readers here haven't noticed: blacks have been driven out-and-out insane by all this, absolutely don't know which end is up, and it's sad to see)

     Yep, truth's the enemy, all right -- double: truth about his birth. Verboten thoughts, almost like denying the holocaust. Like having an anti-semite, or homophobic on board, what with the Nation already hostile toward Israel and all. (see Patriarch Podhoretz, NYTimes 9.6.09)

     But I see I am not alone in having discerned THE SECRET (actually not a secret at all -- just repressed, in the Freudian sense). Here's lrjones4 hipness to nutters: "Perhaps once he found out Jones was, by implication, a 911 conspiracy theory nutter he cut him adrift. Even naive politicians are likely to see that progressive nutters are no more useful in formulating policy than conservative nutters."

     You nutter tourself, lr-4, imo. Both sides can't be nuts when it comes to what the facts are, right? If Alex and Dr. Jones are right, they aren't nutters

     Posted by jones at 09/08/2009 @ 9:35pm

135. Posted by YourJomamma at 09/08/2009 @ 9:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     this rant has gotten very old and stale. whattabore.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 9:40pm

136. Just wondering. With repubs in the minority, what does it matter if Beck gets his panties in a bunch about Jones? With Dems the dominant power by far in DC, why would Obama feel compelled to throw Jones under a bus?

     Did Obama not know about Jones' history? Was Jones vetted for the job?

     Why was Jones' history such a revelation to the public? Shouldn't we have found this all out from the MSM before Jones took his job? Why didn't the MSM (WaPo, NYT, CBS,ABC,NBC) report this instead of Beck?

     Posted by twillie at 09/08/2009 @ 9:45pm

137. Posted by YourJomamma at 09/08/2009 @ 9:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     this rant has gotten very old and stale. whattabore. Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 9:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --like emile himself: purveyor of the old&stale.

     WHATTABORE!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 9:51pm

138. Posted by YourJomamma at 09/08/2009 @ 9:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     this rant has gotten very old and stale. whattabore. Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 9:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     ...by the way, who died and made you decider of what's interesting or not? get back in your cage...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 9:54pm

139. Here is one reason so many bewail Van Jones's departure!

     The commemoration of the devastating 9/11 terrorist attacks that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 people used to be known as "Patriot Day." That designation was established in December 2001 after the House of Representative passed Joint Resolution 71 by a unanimous 407 to 0 vote.

     The new term, the September 11 National Day of Service and Remembrance, stems from an amendment to the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act that Congress passed and President Obama signed into law in April.

     The drive to establish the National Day of Service and Remembrance originated not from any governmental agency or political group, but rather from the 9/11 community itself. A nonprofit, nonpartisan organization created by 9/11 families and other supporters, MyGoodDeed Inc., has led that effort.

     During the Bush years, the Patriot Day designation became politically charged. David Paine, the co-founder and president of the 9/11 National Day of Service and Remembrance, tells Newsmax: "There wasn't widespread consultation with the 9/11 community when that [Patriot Day] name was determined, that was the first thing. The second thing is, that name tended to cause divisions, perhaps because some people felt it was politicized. But I think it's important to focus on calling that day what it is: The September 11 National Day of Service and Remembrance."

     Paine says his organization has labored to keep the annual memorial as non-political as possible. The administration's critics say the question is whether the president and his activist allies on the left share that objective.

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 10:21pm

140. Vadum strongly suspects they do not. He contends legislators and voters never expected the Serve America Act to be used to advance the administration's agenda of downplaying the global war on terror. Examples of other rebranding initiatives by the administration include renaming the global war on terror "overseas contingency operations," and recasting terror attacks as "man-caused disasters."

     According to Vadum, Obama administration officials met in August with left-wing environmental and political organizations to discuss how to use the day's events to further their political objectives.

     Vadum quoted an anonymous source familiar with the meeting, who said, "They're taking that day and they're breaking it because it gives Republicans an advantage. To them, that day is a fearful day."

     Vadum says groups participating in the White House-sponsored Aug. 11 teleconference included the controversial Color of Change organization that Van Jones co-founded, as well as ACORN, the AFL-CIO, the Apollo Alliance, and about 60 other activist groups, most of them highly political.

     "The progressives, Democrats, liberals -- their agenda, led by Obama, is to somehow appease foreigners by American foreign policy. It's a neurotic guilt, a feeling that what America has done is wrong and somehow bad, and they need to make up for it.

     "My reaction would be, 'How dare you, sir?'" Clizbe says. "This is not about service. This is not about working in a soup kitchen. This is about prosecuting a war that someone else started against our country. 9/11 commemorations should be about re-dedicating ourselves to the need to continue prosecuting this war in the name of those whom we've lost in this war -- victims as well as fighters. How dare you try to change the focus!"

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 10:23pm

141. Vadum asks why, if the administration's objectives are straightforward, it is using the day to pursue "radical environmentalist goals."

     It is easy to see why the Obamanation and Demoncrats wish to hijack the worst terrorist attack on American soil for their personal political purposes, but it is BEYOND CONTEMPT!!!

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 10:24pm

142. WTF are you talking about? Thanks for reminding me why I am no longer a liberal (after I left college and quit smoking dope). Your logic gives me a headache. It ain't worth it.

     Posted by yeah-right at 09/08/2009 @ 10:27pm

143. You're working for GE and don't even know it.

     Posted by yeah-right at 09/08/2009 @ 10:34pm

144. yet not a single one was resigned.

     Posted by syfriendly at 09/08/2009 @ 11:54am

     awesome

     "underling, you are RESIGNED!"

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2009 @ 10:50pm

145. Because he is fighting the GOOD fight - the fight for ideas, which are bigger than any one individual.

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/08/2009 @ 1:09pm

     por favor.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2009 @ 10:52pm

146. You nutter tourself, lr-4, imo. Both sides can't be nuts when it comes to what the facts are, right? If Alex and Dr. Jones are right, they aren't nutters

     Posted by jones at 09/08/2009 @ 9:35pm

     Ha Ha love it. No shame in outing yourself? But then I bet Jones is not your real name.

     There is another possibility and that is that this Jones (a genuine one) was talking about how a "naive" president might give any sort of nutter the flick when he made that discovery. The conservative nutter of course may not be a 911 nutter but a nutter in some other area.

     My brother who is a psychiatrist used to take some of his apolitical nutters for a recreational trip to an emporium in Melbourne. One got great satisfaction out of walking up an escalator that was going down. Another, very helpfully, used to top up the bowl of their drinking fountain by peeing in it.

     You need to think outside the square and not imagine that there are only 911 nutters.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 09/08/2009 @ 10:54pm

147. It's extremely obvious that hsuB did not do what Obama just did! And you even say that, but then say that they are indistinguishable!?!?! So if this very simple distinction isn't considered a distinction, how many more won't be either? Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I already said bush is not like obama (in this instance with jones) in that he was loyal to his aides: my issue is they are virtually indistinguishable when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan. Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 4:54pm

     Ok so hsuB really is distinguishable from Obama-- but only not to the degree you wish he should be on only certain issues, is that your argument? Like as long as he's for or against choice you're going to be for or against everything else he's doing, right or wrong?

     Either way, it wasn't like Obama's campaign was all about extremism while he continually tried to bring people together. If anything he continually attempted to show the other side of the argument looked to cooperation in mending fences. Thus the many rivals he attempted to bring into his administration.

     Is it Obama's fault that new con repubs are now extremely delusional? Or that the far left now want to also be taken as seriously as Obama's taking moderate repubs, but without compromise!?!

     No, to mischaracterize Obama as indistinguishable to hsuB simply because he's being responsible in dismantling an irresponsible and most probably, illegal hsuB/cHeney construction, simply lacks in too many future historical variables to be creditable; crosses over into that biased border where the looney birther-deather conspiracy nut cases reside.

     But hey, it's the USA! We take all kinds...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 11:19pm

148. Van Jones was an admitted communist,racist and 911 Truther. What has happened to this country? You sickos defending this crackpot is insane. JFK would have spat on this man. This is no longer the Dem party I once knew. Now you have embrace Hugo Chavez who just closed another 18 opposition media outlets. Every President from Truman forward was very anti communist. Dems and Gop . This is about America. Not party politics. Be American first.

     Posted by Dencal26 at 09/08/2009 @ 11:26pm

149. Now if Obama was lying and bumbling us out of Iraq, maybe one could argue-- OH !@#$@&^*>?<! NOT ANOTHER HSUB PRESIDENCY--INDISTINGUISHABLE!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 11:32pm

150. One can make a big messy tangled up knot in no time, but it takes a hell of a lot longer to untangle the mess especially if the idea is to save the string from breaking...

     hsuB/cHeney had 8 years to make a pretty big knotty mess, I'd assume most rational people would accept the fact that it will take a good deal more than 8 months to untangle it.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/08/2009 @ 11:46pm

151. a naughty mess.....

     unfortunately, mr. obama is "trying" to undo a mobius strip.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 12:37am

152. "Jones never created anything, ran anything"

     actually, that's far, far from the truth. he did both.

     and, he's a remarkable human being.

     "Van Jones was an admitted communist,racist and 911 Truther. "

     he was an admitted communist, but not an admitted racist or 9.11 truther. and is there anything wrong with being a communist? it's like saying, "he's an admitted capitalist." no substance to that argument whatsoever.

     "This is no longer the Dem party I once knew"

     yeah, me neither. the dems have moved so far to the right, that they're basically republicans.

     and the republicans, in maher's words, have moved into an insane asylum.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2009 @ 12:52am

153. Some of Bush's appointees (eg Daniel Pipes, or John Bolton) were so over-the-top crazy as to seem surreal, yet not a single one was resigned.

     Posted by syfriendly at 09/08/2009

     "Rise John Bolton, We now create you Lord Kookstache."-G.W.Bush

     Bush picked Bolton 'cause he knew it would stick in the Dems' craw and the GOP would stick with him.

     The Dems should learn a lesson from this.

     Posted by koroviev at 09/09/2009 @ 02:26am

154. The Dems should learn a lesson from this.

     Posted by koroviev at 09/09/2009 @ 02:26am

     They have...thats how we got Jones...and the country is now awakening to an American administration infested with the same people we spent billions in a cold war to defeat...

     and Jones is a tip of the ice berg. More to come.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 06:55am

155. "...by the way, who died and made you decider of what's interesting or not? get back in your cage..."------Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 9:54pm

     Another keeper....heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 07:28am

156. "and Jones is a tip of the ice berg. More to come."--------Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 06:55am

     Odd, heard that SAME EXACT PHRASE used on an AM radio talk show yesterday afternoon.

     BTW, Maasch, I'd start worrying...Jones may be out, but he's still out there at large. Likely putting flouridation in your water, to sap and impurify all your precious bodily fluids!!!

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 07:31am

157. This is off-topic but have you ever written about racism in graduate schools?

     Macon D of stuffwhitepeopledo recently stated "whenever white people congregate these days, high concentrations of racial homogeneity are just pure coincidence." …

     I am a graduate student at a major biological "research institution" in New York City. You wouldn't know this is a graduate/research program if you stumbled on campus. This exclusive, highly maintained campus feels more like Sandals resort with all of the young upper-middle class white or white male/asian female couples roaming around hand-in-hand during the evenings. Groups of white or white-and-asian students roam with tennis rackets on their way to the on-campus court. Or they congregate in packs at the on-campus student lounge with a personal bartender. Or the white and asian students have parties in the hotel-like student lounge of the dorms.

     Most of the groups of people you see dotted around campus are all-white or white-and-asian. The campus is mostly white with a substantial number of asians but has a serious dearth of black or latino students–and I almost never see the other black students.

     You wouldn't believe the amounts of implicit racism I've experienced here. Twice while coming on campus I've been stopped in a hostile and condescending manner by newly-hired guards who, having seen my ID, told me that I am ‘ok' since I was a groundskeepers or a day worker for the animal facility whose staff is mostly black and latino.

     Coming to my dorm, almost every six months someone gives me a hostile look in the foyer as if I'm some intruder. When I attend lectures, I meet the same hostility until I ask a serious academic question of the lecturer.

     (con'd)

     Posted by LaSmartOne at 09/09/2009 @ 08:00am

158. (con'd) When someone new comes to my lab, they'll automatically either intentionally ignore me or attempt to condescend to me. Scientific sales reps will intentionally ignore me and proceed to the white guys who are also just students. Believe it or not, this one white girl who rotated in the lab would speak to me in a passive-aggressive/patronizing manner. And almost everyone in the lab, despite my being there for years and attempting to form working relationships with them, never come to me casually or attempt to have conversations (work or otherwise) with me unless I initiate the conversation and never at the casual or intelligent level they have with each other.

     I noticed the other two black guys, who are accomodationists (and overrepresented with respect to the real dearth of black students on campus), also attempt to have conversations with the white people in the lab but they are always the ones to initiate the conversation.

     After five years of being here, the only thing I've learned is that white and asian people are the only people competent enough to be scientists.

     A maintenance staff guy wrote an article in the student rag praising the university's president in light of the great hall of European philosophers like Kant and Hume and the great European scientific tradition. Additionally, the sense of ownership and privilege among other students is just incredible.

     I'm beginning to think that biomedical science is almost a white supremist enterprise by default. Science is supposed to be a collaborative endeavor with a free collegial exchange of information and support, but when people are constantly patronizing or condescending to you, such is a psychological assault informing you that you are inconsequential, "tolerated" or unwelcomed. (con'd)

     Posted by LaSmartOne at 09/09/2009 @ 08:01am

159. (con'd) I read a report somewhere that around half of black graduate science students drop out of their programs. If they meet the same kinds of hostility or implied white supremacy I meet, small wonder.

     I've especially felt a sort of patronizing attitude right off the bat from many of the white female students on campus. White women, with the help of affirmative action, have made great gains in both scientific student bodies and faculty, but you would still be wont to find black faculty and only a little more lucky in locating black students in scientific graduate programs across the country. That aside, most of my interactions with white females on campus has been unnecessarily hostile and patronizing.

     There are two other black male students who happen to be in my lab; they're very sycophantic towards the white male students, which surprised me. They're always kissing up, laughing nervously, you know that trying to court your attention laugh, around these other white males who are just graduate students like them. They prick up their minds and attempt to engage the se white guys with crisp, intelligent conversation. They'll go to the white guys equally whenever they have a problem as if they are the fount of knowledge, (I've never seen them approach any of the white girls or the Indian guy when they have problems, but they will approach them for prick-up-your-mind ‘casual' conversation, more than they give me [or each other]). When explicitly in the company of the white guys (which never seems to be together with each other), they intentionally ignore me or will attempt to condescend to me. (con'd)

     Posted by LaSmartOne at 09/09/2009 @ 08:02am

160. (con'd)

     It's irritating to watch white guys no better than the average black guy get their egos stroked day after day by white girls and sycophantic blacks while they also slap themselves on the back. It's not like they're especially brilliant or that this science is just so difficult that only superiorly intelligent white supremists like James Watson can do it.

     I don't even want to get into the student listserve conversation I had to observe in the wake of James Watson's comments back in 2007. Some of them practically endorsed the man with statements like "science is about objective data, not political correctness" or "what does giving a writing prize for his autobiography have to do with him making statements that any old man would make"?

     Posted by LaSmartOne at 09/09/2009 @ 08:02am

161. "...by the way, who died and made you decider of what's interesting or not? get back in your cage..."------Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 9:54pm

     Another keeper....heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 07:28am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --Mask, if I want you (non)substantitive opinion I'll clang on bars of your cage twice...just a heads up so you know the signal.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:16am

162. infested Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 06:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

     infested? you fucking nazi have lost your mind.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 08:16am

163. infested Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 06:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

     infested? you fucking nazi have lost your mind.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 08:16am

164. a naughty mess..... unfortunately, mr. obama is "trying" to undo a mobius strip. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 12:37am

     Ok-- ever see a mobius 'knot'?

     http://tinyurl.com/kl6sq2

     Is that illustrating our gov and only the MIC? What about big energy, big pharm, big insurance, big .... Knotty indeed!

     So why not give Obama a hand instead of taking him to task when most understand full well that new con repubs create this shit just to drown the baby. Being pro-life is just their cover.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 08:17am

165. he was an admitted communist, but not an admitted racist or 9.11 truther. and is there anything wrong with being a communist? it's like saying, "he's an admitted capitalist." no substance to that argument whatsoever.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2009 @ 12:52am

     So you're only a racist if you admit it? All it takes is a simple denial? Marvelous. If any white guy had said something comparable to what Van Jones said about white kids shooting up schools, but was instead angrily focusing on some statistic that makes black people look bad...what would you say about that white man? Would the Left be ambivalent? Reticent? No racism there?

     And is there anything wrong with being a communist? I don't know. Would you consider anything wrong with being a self-confessed Nazi? Considering that communism is not just an economic idea, but a totalitarian, all encompassing belief that government should order about the lives of the People (Orwell's "boot stomping on the face of humanity" for eternity), I'd say yeah, there's a problem with such a guy being in our government. Communism as a system and belief killed more people in the last century than Nazism ever dreamed of doing. To me, the swastika and the hammer and sickle are interchangeable symbols of human misery.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 08:30am

166. he was an admitted communist, but not an admitted racist or 9.11 truther. and is there anything wrong with being a communist? it's like saying, "he's an admitted capitalist." no substance to that argument whatsoever.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2009 @ 12:52am

     So you're only a racist if you admit it? All it takes is a simple denial? Marvelous. If any white guy had said something comparable to what Van Jones said about white kids shooting up schools, but was instead angrily focusing on some statistic that makes black people look bad...what would you say about that white man? Would the Left be ambivalent? Reticent? No racism there?

     And is there anything wrong with being a communist? I don't know. Would you consider anything wrong with being a self-confessed Nazi? Considering that communism is not just an economic idea, but a totalitarian, all encompassing belief that government should order about the lives of the People (Orwell's "boot stomping on the face of humanity" for eternity), I'd say yeah, there's a problem with such a guy being in our government. Communism as a system and belief killed more people in the last century than Nazism ever dreamed of doing. To me, the swastika and the hammer and sickle are interchangeable symbols of human misery.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 08:30am

167. he was an admitted communist, but not an admitted racist or 9.11 truther. and is there anything wrong with being a communist? it's like saying, "he's an admitted capitalist." no substance to that argument whatsoever.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2009 @ 12:52am

     So you're only a racist if you admit it? All it takes is a simple denial? Marvelous. If any white guy had said something comparable to what Van Jones said about white kids shooting up schools, but was instead angrily focusing on some statistic that makes black people look bad...what would you say about that white man? Would the Left be ambivalent? Reticent? No racism there?

     And is there anything wrong with being a communist? I don't know. Would you consider anything wrong with being a self-confessed Nazi? Considering that communism is not just an economic idea, but a totalitarian, all encompassing belief that government should order about the lives of the People (Orwell's "boot stomping on the face of humanity" for eternity), I'd say yeah, there's a problem with such a guy being in our government. Communism as a system and belief killed more people in the last century than Nazism ever dreamed of doing. To me, the swastika and the hammer and sickle are interchangeable symbols of human misery.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 08:30am

168. CC-- shit fix your stupid computer or use another one in the GOP lab.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 08:34am

169. infested Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 06:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

     let me try this another way. the word infested is a loaded one, calling forth associations of vermin, insects, lower forms of life than human, that need to be exterminated.

     you have been channeling the ghost of McCarthy, with your paranoid rants.

     the Nazis used language just like this "infested" to dehumanize the jews. stop emulating them, and come back to reasonable discourse.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 08:37am

170. Posted by LaSmartOne at 09/09/2009 @ 08:02am | ignore this person | warn this person

     tough to get a date, huh? small wonder, they can't see you but for the huge chip on your shoulder.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 08:38am

171. Citizen_Carrier: "So you're only a racist if you admit it? All it takes is a simple denial? Marvelous. If any white guy had said something comparable to what Van Jones said about white kids shooting up schools, but was instead angrily focusing on some statistic that makes black people look bad...what would you say about that white man? Would the Left be ambivalent? Reticent? No racism there?"

     --woah woah woah...liberals are never racist! never.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:39am

172. and Jones is a tip of the ice berg. More to come.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 06:55am

     Of course the other possibility is that in this, as in many other things, there simply isn't anything else there, the tip of the iceberg is all there is.

     Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 08:40am

173. the Nazis used language just like this "infested" to dehumanize the jews. stop emulating them, and come back to reasonable discourse.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 08:37am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --now says he who, yesterday said, when I stated that "right to life" in the constitution means only that the gov't doesn't have the right to put someone to death without a trial, "bullshit, again I say bullshit...who died and made you interpreter of the constitution"...yeah, way to raise the level of the discourse rather than saying why you think a constitutional right to life is broader...

     you're a flaming hypocrite

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:43am

174. the Nazis used language just like this "infested"

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 08:37am

     As a public service to the people here who aren't Communists and Nazis, could you post a list of "suspect" words that shouldn't inadvertently be used, so as to avoid unfair labeling?

     Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 08:45am

175. Posted by LaSmartOne at 09/09/2009 @ 08:02am | ignore this person | warn this person

     tough to get a date, huh? small wonder, they can't see you but for the huge chip on your shoulder.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 08:38am | ignore this person | warn this person

     ...says emile before he turns, looks in the mirror, and has a rare moment of honesty and clarity...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:45am

176. the Nazis used language just like this "infested"

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 08:37am

     As a public service to the people here who aren't Communists and Nazis, could you post a list of "suspect" words that shouldn't inadvertently be used, so as to avoid unfair labeling?

     Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 08:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --gold mistral, gold! emile won't get it, naturally.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:48am

177. ((Just a little switching around needed...))

     --Mask, if I want you (non)substantitive opinion I'll clang on bars of your cage twice...just a heads up so you know the signal.----Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:16am

     "...by the way, who died and made you decider of what's interesting or not? get back in your cage..."------Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 9:54pm

     Another keeper....heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 07:28am

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 09:02am

178. CC-- shit fix your stupid computer or use another one in the GOP lab

     It's the server I'm on, not the computer. It posts everything in multiples of three for some reason.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 09:11am

179. Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:39am

     Posers maybe, true Liberals, no.

     Posted by !immutable at 09/09/2009 @ 09:15am

180. 'As a public service to the people here who aren't Communists and Nazis, could you post a list of "suspect" words that we shouldn't inadvertently use, so we can avoid being unfairly labeled?' -- Mistral

     'No soup for you!' -- Seinfeld

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/09/2009 @ 09:23am

181. ((Just a little switching around needed...))

     --Mask, if I want you (non)substantitive opinion I'll clang on bars of your cage twice...just a heads up so you know the signal.----Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:16am

     "...by the way, who died and made you decider of what's interesting or not? get back in your cage..."------Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 9:54pm

     Another keeper....heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 07:28am

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 09:02am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --you don't "get" the second post, which was mocking emile when he says that to others (he often says "who died and made you...")

     --and as for you Mask, you've been exposed as the fraud you are. Other posters are catching on...but enjoy your cute copy-and-paste during your day long arts-and-crafts class here at teh nation...the (actual) nation rejoices you are kept busy here...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 09:24am

182. Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 09:02am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --also, your posts are becoming creepy...I'm locking my pets up and warning the neighboorhood watch to keep an eye on the children...I know your types, a little too comfortable with getting close to strangers...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 09:26am

183. Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 08:45am

     Language and labels can be used to dehumanize. Not sure if "infested" in this particular case applies.

     What I am curious to know is if both you and Urmygyro agree, do you think the Obama Administration is made up of Communists?

     I think the "could you post a list of "suspect" words" is simply misdirection to avoid having to rebut YourJomamma for doing just what you imply Emile was doing.

     Posted by !immutable at 09/09/2009 @ 09:40am

184. maybe I can help. when someone refers to other people as "these animals", that is offensive, as it dehumanizes them. same with labeling other people as vermin.

     and that is the crux of my point. when you start dehumanizing others, it is a short distance from the ovens.

     I come from a people who have had to wrestle with these issues since the holocaust. there is no such thing as collective guilt, but there is such a thing as collective reflection.

     Germany which had to pay huge sums of reparations after BOTH world wars, has paid millions to reparations to the survivors of exterminated, there is one of those loaded words.

     incidentally the amount Germany paid in reparations after WW2 to the victors, is roughly the same amount Germany received from the Marshall plan.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 09:49am

185. a note of amusement. just yesterday the term liberal became an epithet hurled by the right. they have now kicked the calumny up a notch. now it's communists. the horror.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 09:51am

186. Posted by !immutable at 09/09/2009 @ 09:40am

     Do you think Obama hired Van Jones because he was tired of scurrilous accusations that his administration is "fascist" and preferred scurrilous accusations that it is "communist"?

     Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 09:53am

187. http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB20001424052970203440104574400850103134572.html

     education article - off topic, i know, but this thread should cease to be the flagship thread regardless.

     public IS getting fed up with the parasitism of education...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/09/2009 @ 10:05am

188. a note of amusement. just yesterday the term liberal became an epithet hurled by the right. they have now kicked the calumny up a notch. now it's communists. the horror.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 09:51am

     Where have you been for the last 60 years?

     Communist has been an epithet for at least that long.

     And liberal has been an epithet since the '64 presidential election.

     And rightly so on both counts.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 10:05am

189. And liberal has been an epithet since the '64 presidential election.

     And rightly so on both counts.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 10:05am | ignore this person | warn this person

     yyeah, but "liberal" was not widely seen outside a limited circle as an epithet until much later - 90's it seems to me...

     even now i find "progressive" more to my liking - classically speaking the satano-aynrandos are more like liberal...

     american definitions got crossed some decades ago it seems.

     how u doing, shepherd?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/09/2009 @ 10:09am

190. Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 09:53am

     Answer my serious question and I will answer your sarcastic question.

     Posted by !immutable at 09/09/2009 @ 10:14am

191. Mistrial,

     Tip of the Ice Berg?..We are infested with these types.

     Check out this thought...

     No one does the math and thinks through the emotionla drivel that poses as caring...

     "A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline. A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

     So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

     They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons / year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption. And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl. So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million. How good a deal was that ???

     They'll probably do a great job with health care though!!

     And the planet is saved?

     Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 10:23am

192. Answer my serious question and I will answer your sarcastic question.

     Posted by !immutable at 09/09/2009 @ 10:14am

     The post had the phrase

     ...scurrilous accusations that it is "communist"...

     indicating that the accusations of "communist" infestation are scurrilous.

     Besides, how many communist czars can the administration have?

     Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 10:29am

193. Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 10:23am

     Seems that the iceberg is growing faster than the South Polar cap.

     Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 10:33am

194. Besides, how many communist czars can the administration have?

     Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 10:29am

     All of them. Check out their resumes...vet them..no one else has.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 10:34am

195. Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 08:45am

     Language and labels can be used to dehumanize. Not sure if "infested" in this particular case applies.

     What I am curious to know is if both you and Urmygyro agree, do you think the Obama Administration is made up of Communists?

     I think the "could you post a list of "suspect" words" is simply misdirection to avoid having to rebut YourJomamma for doing just what you imply Emile was doing.

     Posted by !immutable at 09/09/2009 @ 09:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --um, what? mistral's "could you post a list of suspect words" was addressed to emile; and it was piercing and funny. not everyone gets good humor.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:40am

196. Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 10:29am

     Sorry, my reading comprehension failed me.

     Posted by !immutable at 09/09/2009 @ 10:41am

197. Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:40am

     Humor and Nazis, good one.

     Posted by !immutable at 09/09/2009 @ 10:44am

198. maybe I can help. when someone refers to other people as "these animals", that is offensive, as it dehumanizes them. same with labeling other people as vermin.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 09:49am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --I don't save month-old and year-old posts like Mask does, but I can guarantee you've violated your own maxim above dozens if not hundreds of times at the nation in the past decade...we'll see going forward whether you can bring yourself to no longer "dehumanize" others here...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:45am

199. maybe I can help. when someone refers to other people as "these animals", that is offensive, as it dehumanizes them. same with labeling other people as vermin.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 09:49am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --I'm sure you've never called republicans "repugs" or george bush "chimp", etc...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:47am

200. Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:40am

     Humor and Nazis, good one.

     Posted by !immutable at 09/09/2009 @ 10:44am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --it was actually "communists"...and emile was the poster trying to "regulate" speech here...something far too amusing and ironic if you've been around long enough to see the vitriol he types towards people he doesn't like...typical hypocrite, uses a method, then cries fowl when someone else uses the same.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:49am

201. Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 10:23am

     Maasch seems to like this...must have Cut & Pasted it off of a Weekly Standard opinion piece.

     Just note the same as I did on the other thread he used it...according to HIS numbers...

     we spent $3 Billion to reduce our oil consumption by 1/4.

     That's a few weeks in Iraq.

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 10:54am

202. "Other posters are catching on..."----Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 09:24am

     Like Peter Rothberg???

     "URMY has a style??"---Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/27/2009 @ 1:00pm

     Torture Team Trading Cards posted by Peter Rothberg on 08/27/2009 @ 11:19am

     LOL

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 10:55am

203. I've said most of this before, but it fits in this thread as well.

     Why did President Obama chicken out? The movement against Van Jones doesn't represent anywhere near a majority of US-Americans. Even if it did, it wouldn't include the mentally brightest or the morally most virtuous among us. It wouldn't even have included the most tenacious. After Van Jones's installment in office, the movement would have quickly given up and found some other petty issue to obsess about.

     Although Glenn Beck won, he won by default. He didn't win because the supporters of Van Jones failed to raise their voices. He won because President Obama refused to listen to them

     Nonetheless, I do not believe that Obama is generally a cowardly man. I do believe that his calculated decisions about whom to listen to and whom to ignore are constrained by the plutocratic structure of our elections. Stated more plainly: Obama can easily afford to offend legions of campaign contributors who send only $10 each, but he cannot afford to offend many who send $100s of dollars each.

     I cannot provide any other explanation for the manifest cowardice in this and numerous other decisions that Democrats make. Whenever they stand up for the poor and against the rich, they lose money. So they don't dare to do it often. This accounts for the Democrats' fabled spinelessness.

     Conversely, whenever the Republicans stand up for the rich against the poor, they are rewarded. This accounts for their fabled loyalty to their principles, which unfortunately impresses many voters who do not share these principles.

     So let me say again: Part of the solution to our predicament is serious campaign finance reform. I propose a limit of $10 per contributor per candidate.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/09/2009 @ 10:56am

204. I cannot provide any other explanation for the manifest cowardice in this and numerous other decisions that Democrats make. Whenever they stand up for the poor and against the rich, they lose money. So they don't dare to do it often. This accounts for the Democrats' fabled spinelessness.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/09/2009 @ 10:56am

     You better hang on to that "explanation" for a long, long, lonnnnnnnng time! Word of advice: the longer into the Magic Era, the tighter the truly faithfuls will need to grow claws, er, nails, to hang even tighter!

     Posted by Happy at 09/09/2009 @ 11:05am

205. I propose a limit of $10 per contributor per candidate.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/09/2009 @ 10:56am

     Does that include the value of one's time? Suppose one worked on a phone bank and put in two hours of time. Wouldn't that (at minimum wage) be a contribution of more than $10?

     Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 11:11am

206. "Other posters are catching on..."----Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 09:24am

     Like Peter Rothberg???

     "URMY has a style??"---Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/27/2009 @ 1:00pm

     Torture Team Trading Cards posted by Peter Rothberg on 08/27/2009 @ 11:19am

     LOL

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 10:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --well, he was off his game that day; there's been plenty of other days he addresses what I say rather than attacking me...not peter's best effort to threaten censoring (especially since you and all other posters go off topic ALL the time!)

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:26am

207. Mask,

     Never read the Magazine.

     Iraq has what to do with Health care?...or are you using a debacle of Iraq to describe the ineptitude of govt to run Health Care as it has run Iraq after the military turned it over to our bureacrats?

     Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 11:48am

208. Mask,

     What about the idea and the premise of the story, rather than focus on where I got it or who the numbers work out....

     the govt numbers give the results...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 11:50am

209. 'Does that include the value of one's time? Suppose one worked on a phone bank and put in two hours of time.

     Wouldn't that (at minimum wage) be a contribution of more than $10?' -- Mistral

     'Eleven people hired to register potential voters in Miami-Dade County before last year's presidential election were being sought Wednesday for falsifying hundreds of voter registration cards.

     The Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office issued arrest warrants for each of the 11 suspects, all of whom worked for the local chapter of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, (ACORN).

     ...

     The majority of those sampled ``contained registrant information that was not able to be matched to a living person,'' the warrant said.

     The workers, who were paid between $8 and $10 an hour, registered names of nonexistent people -- in one case, Paul Newman and James Taylor appeared on cards -- or simply filled out several cards for the same real voter, authorities said.' -- Miami Herald -- 9 September, 2009 -- http://www. miamiherald.com/news /breaking-news/story/ 1224631.html

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/09/2009 @ 11:57am

210. In an attempt, I suppose, to upstage President Obama, I see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton decided to visit a school in order to impart their wisdom. The class was 4th grade vocabulary, and the word for the day was "TRAGEDY" The teacher turned the class over to the two icons and Jackson asked for a description of the day's word. "Like if your dog ran out and got hit by a car" piped up Peter. "Nooo Nooo Nooooo" said Jackson, lowering and shaking his head. "That would be more like an ACCIDENT." "How about," said little Katrina, "if a bus filled with people ran off a bridge and everyone was killed." Nooo Nooo Noooo Sharpton answered. "That would certainly be a GREAT LOSS, but still not really a tragedy." Finally Ari said to Jackson, "What if the airplane that you and Rev Sharpton were flying ran into bad weather and the result was a fatal crash." The two Rev's eyes' lit up. "NOW you have it, son! Now tell us what it is about that that makes it a tragedy." "Well," said Ari. "It certainly wouldn't be any great Great Loss and it probably wouldnt've been an Accident, so it would have to be a Tragedy!"

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/09/2009 @ 12:02pm

211. the govt numbers give the results...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 11:50am

     Yep...and using YOUR numbers, Maasch, if we spent roughly the SAME amount of money that we spend on Iraq...we could have cut the oil useage of this country by 25%...thus negating much of the money that the guys who funded 9/11 would have gotten from the guys that Dubya was holding hands with.

     Your "sudden arrival" at objections to the "War on Terror" are well known. Nothing that prevented you from voting for Dubya in 2004...or for a straight Republican ticket in every Congressional since then....but now is VERY convenient.

     Speaking of things "forgotten" that you once supported....remember?-

     "My hope is Obama becomes a great President but I also prefer he do it on his own and that we judge him AFTER he has completed his term."----Posted by YourJomamma at 02/12/2009 @ 09:59am

     On Matters Constitutional: Honor Congressman Lincoln posted by John Nichols on 02/12/2009 @ 12:42am

     ((Isi it 2012 already????))

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 12:17pm

212. Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 10:23am |

     - Do the cars stop getting the gas mileage after one year?

     - $3B / $350M/yr => 8.6 years until break-even

     - Don't you like tax revenue from car salesmen?

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/09/2009 @ 12:36pm

213. Mask,

     So I have decided Iraq, when all is said and done, does not return what was put into it.....and this makes me...What?

     I can think of most govt programs add up the same way, yet YOU support them ad nauseum.

     I never voted for Bush because of Iraq...I voted for him because of ALGORE AND KERRY..enough said...those 2 names alone should be understood by everyone with a thin thread of common sense..

     And I am not against the war on terror..I am for it...flatten Warziristan for all I care...

     The point of govt motors and the junker fiasco is that the govt can't run it. It makes no economic sense..when figuring all the spare parts, the valueable, cheap autos that get taken off the market that in reality do not get much more milage...used cars increase in price hurt ..who?

     Cars were being sold because of govt bribe..not because of real demand for those cars or to save the planet. The cars sold because of govt money...no money no cars sold, therefore no reeal "stimulus"..just waste. EXACTLY like govt stimulus plan, same effect on economy, nothing real. We haven't made an electric car that will replace the current engine and the GM with unions will never make one fast enough or priced well enough to have the consumer buy it..not without a govt finance plan...all which is not in the govts sphere, nor should it be

     as far as my voting republican straight ticket..go back into your achives( I hope KVH is paying you to do this) you will see I have never voted straight party lines...thats a union position for the dems...

     case in point? Last senator I vote for besides Johanns, was Ben Nelson....he got my vote becasue he reprresents what I think is important.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 1:10pm

214. All these people being thrown under the bus. It's like the scene from "Hotel Rwanda"

     Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 1:39pm

215. CC-- shit fix your stupid computer or use another one in the GOP lab It's the server I'm on, not the computer. It posts everything in multiples of three for some reason. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 09:11am

     So problem solved-- always use the other server.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 1:41pm

216. @libzRfreaks2: Are you able to do something productive, such as function like a plant and make oxygen? It its readily apparent that you are devoid of any type of intellectual thought or critical analysis, much like those who I imagine that you admire: Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, et al.

     I find it hilarious when people (like you) resort to the politics of personal destruction or personal attacks to justify their viewpoint. It confirms that I/we must be doing something correctly if you cannot marshall credible and coherent arguments in support your position.

     So I guess I should encourage you to continue with your vile and infantile comments...

     Posted by mykaladrian at 09/09/2009 @ 1:56pm

217. Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 1:10pm

     Yes, but...

     1. Unless you want to make the case that Gore would have invaded Iraq...or Kerry would have kept us there longer than Dubya.....a trillion spent on reducing oil consumption would have proved more useful than that war.

     2. You're still judging Obama BEFORE his first term is completed.

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 2:07pm

218. I do believe that Gore's response to 9/11 would've been tepid...perhaps even apologetic. Whatever else you want to accuse Bush of, the fact remains that nearly every lieutenant of al Qaeda involved in planning, logisitics, or execution of 9/11 is either dead or in prison. Anything less than that would've been a failure of leadership.

     And I don't suppose anyone here judged Bush before his term ended, did they?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 2:43pm

219. I do believe that Gore's response to 9/11 would've been tepid...perhaps even apologetic. Whatever else you want to accuse Bush of, the fact remains that nearly every lieutenant of al Qaeda involved in planning, logisitics, or execution of 9/11 is either dead or in prison. Anything less than that would've been a failure of leadership.

     And I don't suppose anyone here judged Bush before his term ended, did they?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 2:43pm

220. I do believe that Gore's response to 9/11 would've been tepid...perhaps even apologetic. Whatever else you want to accuse Bush of, the fact remains that nearly every lieutenant of al Qaeda involved in planning, logisitics, or execution of 9/11 is either dead or in prison. Anything less than that would've been a failure of leadership.

     And I don't suppose anyone here judged Bush before his term ended, did they?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 2:43pm

221. No one does the math ...So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year....They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons / year. ...That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. ...Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 10:23am

     Actually one barrel 'crude' = 19 gallons of 'gasoline'. So that's more like 13 million barrels crude and if crude moves up to $82/barrel (forecast), we're looking at $1.070 billion per year x (years 700k new cars driven + car manufacturers incentive to build more hybrids/more economical cars)... That 3 billion spent priming the pump in this line of logic then pays off in less than 3 years; then continues.

     http://www.oil-price.net/

     http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004727.html

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 2:45pm

222. Some of these comments are ridiculous.

     Glenn Beck went in on Jones not because of ego or hurt feelings. Nor did he do it out of "love for his country." He went in on him because Americans for Prosperity oil lobbyist Phil Kerpen needed help in undermining BO's energy agenda. So all of you people who fed into the "pinko commie" hysteria (which always seems to happen with any outspoken activist left of center who dares to fight against discrimination), pat yourselves on the back! You scored another one for Big Business! I'm sure they'll return the favor by continuing to STEP ON YOU.

     Idiots.

     Posted by thewayoftheid at 09/09/2009 @ 3:10pm

223. If it's a choice between "big business" or billions of dollars spent on "demand-side" economics using government mandates to create "green jobs" that would already exist if the market needed them or had a niche for them...I'll side with big business.

     Real jobs don't have to wait for some czar to create them. They already exist or will come into existence via the demands of the market, not the government.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 3:18pm

224. If it's a choice between "big business" or billions of dollars spent on "demand-side" economics using government mandates to create "green jobs" that would already exist if the market needed them or had a niche for them...I'll side with big business.

     Real jobs don't have to wait for some czar to create them. They already exist or will come into existence via the demands of the market, not the government.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 3:18pm

225. If it's a choice between "big business" or billions of dollars spent on "demand-side" economics using government mandates to create "green jobs" that would already exist if the market needed them or had a niche for them...I'll side with big business.

     Real jobs don't have to wait for some czar to create them. They already exist or will come into existence via the demands of the market, not the government.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 3:18pm

226. Cash for clunkers did not create or generate new wealth.

     It took taxpayer money that should've been spent on "public use" projects or funding and instead funneled it to a small portion of the population able to cash in on a government handout.

     Then, after taking money that could've been spent on roads or aircraft carriers or something EVERY American derives a benefit or use from and channeling it to a small group, the government then turned around and DESTROYED items that possessed inherent worth or value.

     So we paid $3500 or $4500 to DESTROY cars that probably were worth at least that amount of money if left alone.

     So we had money moved around, not created, and items of intrinsic value reduced to junk.

     The essence of government in action.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 3:24pm

227. Cash for clunkers did not create or generate new wealth.

     It took taxpayer money that should've been spent on "public use" projects or funding and instead funneled it to a small portion of the population able to cash in on a government handout.

     Then, after taking money that could've been spent on roads or aircraft carriers or something EVERY American derives a benefit or use from and channeling it to a small group, the government then turned around and DESTROYED items that possessed inherent worth or value.

     So we paid $3500 or $4500 to DESTROY cars that probably were worth at least that amount of money if left alone.

     So we had money moved around, not created, and items of intrinsic value reduced to junk.

     The essence of government in action.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 3:24pm

228. Cash for clunkers did not create or generate new wealth.

     It took taxpayer money that should've been spent on "public use" projects or funding and instead funneled it to a small portion of the population able to cash in on a government handout.

     Then, after taking money that could've been spent on roads or aircraft carriers or something EVERY American derives a benefit or use from and channeling it to a small group, the government then turned around and DESTROYED items that possessed inherent worth or value.

     So we paid $3500 or $4500 to DESTROY cars that probably were worth at least that amount of money if left alone.

     So we had money moved around, not created, and items of intrinsic value reduced to junk.

     The essence of government in action.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 3:24pm

229. "And I don't suppose anyone here judged Bush before his term ended, did they?"---Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 2:43pm

     Well..

     1. Besides your "feelings" you have no proof that Gore would have been "tepid"...not "extrapolation of what Clinton did" either...given Clinton actually CAUGHT and CONVICTED terrorists who perputrated the WTC bombing....while Dubya still left bin Laden at large.

     2. Maasch WROTE THAT he would withhold judgement of Obama until his term ended, CC. If he didn't, it wouldn't be hypocritical, would it???

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 3:24pm

230. Real jobs don't have to wait for some czar to create them. They already exist or will come into existence via the demands of the market, not the government. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 3:18pm

     Like the US road system? Medicare/medicaid? Social security? Vet Health Admin?

     47 million uninsured exist only because the market can't profiteer from them legally. Perhaps we just need to step a little bit further into the new con repub dark side, like revoking child labor laws!?! Or repeal the 13th amendment and bring back indenture survitude/slavery-- bet big business would be all a'buzz!

     Health insurance for everyone-- for a very very dark price indeed!

     There's a reason our gov is empowered to legitimize and regulate corporations; to insure domestic tranquility and promote general welfare.

     Multinationals aren't of and for 'we the people', we are.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 3:59pm

231. C,

     I'd believe that if there weren't green jobs programs already in existence--and working. What Van was proposing was a public-private partnership, which in some cities is already happening. Nothing "radical" about his agenda. What IS radical, however, is that everyone screaming for his scalp had a vested financial interest in seeing that BO's energy policies didn't see the light of day.

     But really? It's less about patriotism and more about profit. Which is cool (unless you're one of those unemployed types). But let's at least be honest about it.

     Posted by thewayoftheid at 09/09/2009 @ 4:06pm

232. Citizen Carrier

     Have you tried Mozilla Firefox instead of IE?

     Perhaps you might eliminate this redundant post problem you are having.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 4:07pm

233. It's the server I'm on, not the computer. It posts everything in multiples of three for some reason. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/09/2009 @ 09:11am

     So he managed to do it -- ONCE!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 4:15pm

234. I propose a limit of $10 per contributor per candidate. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/09/2009 @ 10:56am

     'Does that include the value of one's time? Suppose one worked on a phone bank and put in two hours of time. Wouldn't that (at minimum wage) be a contribution of more than $10?'

     No, "Mistral," under my proposal, that wouldn't count. Under my proposal, you would still be allowed to work as many hours as you wanted pushing phones, for any candidate you chose, and for any wage that your bosses were willing to pay you. It would count only if you yourself sent $10 of your minimum-wage salary to a candidate's campaign fund, in your own name. And your signature would be required, too; no anonymous donations would be allowed.

     (My limit would, of course, limit the amount each person called could be asked to GIVE to any candidate's campaign, namely no more than $10. This, in turn, would also limit the number of phone callers that a political candidate's campaign would be able to employ.)

     My proposal really is a modest one, isn't it? But an effective one, I think!

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/09/2009 @ 7:01pm

235. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/09/2009 @ 7:01pm

     Why do you hate freedom of speech. Are you afraid of competing ideas?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 9:35pm

236. tough to get a date, huh? small wonder, they can't see you but for the huge chip on your shoulder.

     Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 08:38am

     Bit rusty with my French JR but shouldn't that be Le. Maybe getting La mixed up with Le is also part of the problem.

     I suppose one solution would be to use Les. Assuming bi is a sort of plural.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 09/09/2009 @ 10:23pm

237. The right is foaming at the mouth and I wish the administration was less Mr Rogers. That said, this guy is not the only one who could do that job and he should have been more forthcoming/better vetted. This is politics, it's blood sport, it's messy. I keep saying Audre Lourde was wrong, in a fight you pick up the "master's tools" and any other tools you can get your hands on.

     Posted by Lalareina at 09/10/2009 @ 06:01am

238. My proposal really is a modest one, isn't it? But an effective one, I think!

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/09/2009 @ 7:01pm

     Does that $10 include the money somebody spends buying advertising (printing flyers, putting up signs, newspaper advertising, radio commercials)? For instance, if one put up signs all around town saying, "Vote for Mayor Ella Vater, She'll Get Us To The Next Level!" but doesn't actually send her any money, would the price of those signs count towards the $10 limit?

     Posted by Mistral at 09/10/2009 @ 08:12am

239. So he managed to do it -- ONCE!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 4:15pm

     It was the classic example of hearing a noise in your car, taking it to the mechanic, and having him hear no noise. I have no idea why it only posted just once on the one time I was trying to explain why I always get three posts.

     Once again, I'm going to hit the "submit" button...once...

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/10/2009 @ 08:20am

240. So he managed to do it -- ONCE!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 4:15pm

     It was the classic example of hearing a noise in your car, taking it to the mechanic, and having him hear no noise. I have no idea why it only posted just once on the one time I was trying to explain why I always get three posts.

     Once again, I'm going to hit the "submit" button...once...

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/10/2009 @ 08:20am

241. So he managed to do it -- ONCE!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 4:15pm

     It was the classic example of hearing a noise in your car, taking it to the mechanic, and having him hear no noise. I have no idea why it only posted just once on the one time I was trying to explain why I always get three posts.

     Once again, I'm going to hit the "submit" button...once...

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/10/2009 @ 08:20am

242. 1. Besides your "feelings" you have no proof that Gore would have been "tepid"...not "extrapolation of what Clinton did" either...given Clinton actually CAUGHT and CONVICTED terrorists who perputrated the WTC bombing....while Dubya still left bin Laden at large.

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 3:24pm

     Just as conjecture about what Gore would or would not have done coming from liberals is also based on "feelings".

     And as far as Clinton catching "his" WTC bombers...WOW! He was a regular Sherlock Holmes!

     Of course, having one of the terrorists dumb enough to go back to the truck rental place to try and get his deposit back did play a role in catching these "Professor Moriartys", I'm sure having them all still in the United States didn't hurt either.

     Contrast that with one man hiding in an area of a few thousand square miles amid a population that is largely supportive of him, and the comparison starts to look ridiculous. Still, the fact remains that the two dozen or so people under Osama responsible for 9/11 are either dead or in jail.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/10/2009 @ 08:26am

243. 1. Besides your "feelings" you have no proof that Gore would have been "tepid"...not "extrapolation of what Clinton did" either...given Clinton actually CAUGHT and CONVICTED terrorists who perputrated the WTC bombing....while Dubya still left bin Laden at large.

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 3:24pm

     Just as conjecture about what Gore would or would not have done coming from liberals is also based on "feelings".

     And as far as Clinton catching "his" WTC bombers...WOW! He was a regular Sherlock Holmes!

     Of course, having one of the terrorists dumb enough to go back to the truck rental place to try and get his deposit back did play a role in catching these "Professor Moriartys", I'm sure having them all still in the United States didn't hurt either.

     Contrast that with one man hiding in an area of a few thousand square miles amid a population that is largely supportive of him, and the comparison starts to look ridiculous. Still, the fact remains that the two dozen or so people under Osama responsible for 9/11 are either dead or in jail.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/10/2009 @ 08:26am

244. 1. Besides your "feelings" you have no proof that Gore would have been "tepid"...not "extrapolation of what Clinton did" either...given Clinton actually CAUGHT and CONVICTED terrorists who perputrated the WTC bombing....while Dubya still left bin Laden at large.

     Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 3:24pm

     Just as conjecture about what Gore would or would not have done coming from liberals is also based on "feelings".

     And as far as Clinton catching "his" WTC bombers...WOW! He was a regular Sherlock Holmes!

     Of course, having one of the terrorists dumb enough to go back to the truck rental place to try and get his deposit back did play a role in catching these "Professor Moriartys", I'm sure having them all still in the United States didn't hurt either.

     Contrast that with one man hiding in an area of a few thousand square miles amid a population that is largely supportive of him, and the comparison starts to look ridiculous. Still, the fact remains that the two dozen or so people under Osama responsible for 9/11 are either dead or in jail.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/10/2009 @ 08:26am

245. Does everything this ahthor, (Lacewell), writes have to have racial undertones to it? Is that why she writes for The Nation? Does she even know who Van Jones is?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/10/2009 @ 2:50pm

246. @ you're right gunslinger, people of color should tailor all their communication to make you comfortable.

     Posted by Lalareina at 09/11/2009 @ 06:41am