Enough With Cramer's Apologies; Fix CNBC!

Coming off the "meltdown smackdown" inquisition of CNC cheerleader Jim Cramer by Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, a great new campaign has been launched to "Fix CNBC!"

Truth be told, CNBC may be beyond repair.

But the messaging is smart and instructive with regard to the broader media crisis in America:

Dear CNBC --

"You knew what the banks were doing, and yet were touting it for months and months. The entire network was." -- Jon Stewart

These now-legendary words were a wake-up call. We're asking you to wake up.

Americans need CNBC to do strong, watchdog journalism -– asking tough questions to Wall Street, debunking lies, and reporting the truth. Instead, CNBC has done PR for Wall Street. You've been so obsessed with getting "access" to failed CEOs that you willfully passed on misinformation to the public for years, helping to get us into the economic crisis we face today.

You screwed up badly. Don't apologize – fix it!

CNBC should publicly declare that its new overriding mission will be responsible journalism that holds Wall Street accountable. As a down payment, we ask you to hire some new economic voices -– people who have a track record of being right about the economic crisis and holding Wall Street executives' feet to the fire.

More than 10,000 people have signed the open letter making this call, including Dean Baker, Todd Gitlin, Lawrence Lessig, Eric Alterman, Rick Perlstein, Eileen Appelbaum, Don Hazen, MoveOn's Justin Ruben, Free Press' Josh Silver, FAIR's Peter Hart and Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor, the co-founders of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is promoting the initiative. (You can join them by signing the open letter here.

So if CNBC were to "hire some new economic voices," where might they turn? Of course, we'd all like to see Dean Baker on air. And here are some other smart prospects:

* Author and columnist David Sirota is a smart progressive populist who knows economics and does his research. He's been doing quite a bit of cable recently, and he's good. Best of all, he's actually visited America states that are not touched by the Atlantic Ocean.

* Public Citizen Global Trade Watch director Lori Wallach knows trade and international economic policy as well as anyone around, and like Sirota she knows her way around a television studio. She also underestands more about the personalities and workings of Congress and the federal bureaucracy than anyone who isn't on the inside.

* The Nation's William Greider. He's a colleague, of course. But he is, as well, the man who has been raising and writing about essential issues relating to the Federal Reserve and the banking industry for longer than just about anyone else. He actually knows the secrets of the temple. Just imagine if Greider had been on air last fall to raise the questions in his piece "Paulson Bailout Plan a Historic Swindle".

* Phil Donahue. He's a progressive, he's a dissenter with depth, he knows economic and consumer issues and -- given the freedom to pursue issues -- he is a brilliant and effective interviewer. If Donahue simply went on air and invited his friends Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson to join him of a regular basis, it would be must-see TV. But Donahue always finds young thinkers and doers to highlight.

* TransAfrica Forum executive director Nicole Lee. A savvy analyst of international economics, she is like Wallach an able dissenter from the free-trade orthodoxy that pollutes the cable discourse.

Comments (49)

1. Actually, I'd like to see them give more air-time to....

   Jim Glassman. A solid "Buy,buy,buy" libertarian-conservative guy from the 2000s culiminating in his BRILLIANT book "Dow 36,000"...

   and one person, just to point and laugh at him.

   Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 12:15pm

2. Nichols, did you fly out to San Franwacko and smoke some dope with Darladoon?

   If CNBC has any intelligence, they will promptly put that letter in the round file where it belongs.

   This is just another attempt by the left as they strive to end capitalism and our market economy.

   Phil Donohue? please...leave him in with Lenin and the other marxists in their tombs.

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 12:26pm

3. Anti Socialist. Phil Donahue is a liberal. You dumb fuck. Of course, those who live by red-baiting, die by it too.

   Posted by ElyDog at 03/17/2009 @ 12:39pm

4. Anti Socialist. Phil Donahue is a liberal. You dumb fuck. Of course, those who live by red-baiting, die by it too.

   Posted by ElyDog at 03/17/2009 @ 12:39pm

   Donahue is so far to the left he makes liberal seem conservative.

   And I see you are another language challenged leftist.

   Die by it? so you are also a violent marxist? not surprised.

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 12:44pm

5. Posted by ElyDog at 03/17/2009 @ 12:39pm

   Ely, everybody Left of Joe Lieberman is a "Marxist" to lvlib/anti-socks.

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 1:24pm

6. Fixing CNBC would be like telling Wal-Mart to stop selling crap made in China.

   Posted by hivanh at 03/17/2009 @ 1:36pm

7. Tiny Tim Geither may be looking for some economic advice soon on finding a job he might be competent to do, maybe they could hire him? He has done so well with big banking bailout he should be the lefts model!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 03/17/2009 @ 1:43pm

8. A good place to start cleaning up CNBC would be to get Kudlow off the air. He is just another conservative Republican hack who can't be trusted to tell it like it is instead of like he wants it to be. Michelle Caruso-Cabrera may be a very smart lady but she can't hide her political beliefs and should go. The whole crew needs a lesson in objective, investigative reporting.

   Posted by bbmmit at 03/17/2009 @ 1:46pm

9. Interesting list; I've been thinking I would like for MSNBC to fill that 10:00 slot with someone who can focus on economics and recovery.

   It would be nice if people who "toil" in the financial markets could see that they're only PART of the economy, and that the world wasn't created just to make them privately, extraordinarily wealthy.

   Posted by B.Jeany at 03/17/2009 @ 1:53pm

10. Assuming Stewart had a point, beyond expressing his indignation at the sheer magnitude of the greed and betrayal that has marked this meltdown, it was to embarrass CNBC into revising it's laissez-faire editorial stance. That's fine as far as it goes; that cable channel could use an injection of new blood and an occasional progressive critique given that they always seem to be reacting to events rather than offering any genuine perspective.

    But blaming Cramer -- who was warning about errant boards, CEOs and the impending meltdown almost a year ahead of all others else as well as trying to get the short selling uptick rule reinstated -- is like blaming the canary who dies in a coal mine. Yes, "the pigs have eaten the trough," but few did as much as Cramer to warn us. And nobody, including the Nation, amplified the points he was making when it would have mattered. Now we are CLEARLY now in the "execute the victims" phase of this disaster.

    Posted by bmusler at 03/17/2009 @ 2:06pm

11. Posted by bbmmit at 03/17/2009 @ 1:46pm

    "The whole crew needs a lesson in objective, investigative reporting."

    Yes, especially from people who have never had a responsible position in the financial industry, know absolutely nothing and care even less about how markets operate, and who are willing to blindly regurgitate the leftist meme of the day. For this, Nichols' list should serve admirably.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2009 @ 2:07pm

12. Do you think we could use the Fairness Doctrine to fire anyone at CNBC who questions the enlightened policies of Barack? Obviously, if they don't support Barack, they have no business reporting on financial matters.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2009 @ 2:08pm

13. Antisocialist, How does objecting to someone giving out financial misinformation have to do with undermining capitalism? It seems that when you do it, you give capitalism a bad name.

    Posted by DFAY at 03/17/2009 @ 2:17pm

14. Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2009 @ 2:08pm

    That why anti-Iraq war guy but die-hard conservative Pat Buchanan had to go to MSNBC, instead of Fox???

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 2:21pm

15. Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 2:21pm

    "That why anti-Iraq war guy but die-hard conservative Pat Buchanan had to go to MSNBC, instead of Fox???"

    No, it's because Buchanan is a freaking NUT, and MSNBC is where the nuts are gathered.

    Seriously, though, why would anyone want to hire any of those idiots that Nichols listed? It would be like listening to members of the medieval Spanish Inquisition comment on the motions of the planets in 2009. Not only do they not understand what they are talking about, they don't even WANT to understand, because it conflicts with the dogma they've been indoctrinated with. Laughable.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2009 @ 2:30pm

16. The enlightened comments and article by John Nichols, do nothing to address the issue which is General Electric has no business owning media of any kind. GE's stock is in the toilet due to the fact that they were doing the same crap w/ mortgages as everyone else, and they benefited from these shenanigan as they were promoting them through their network. This is true with all the media conglomerates that have been allowed to merge and consolidate with out any due diligence by the FCC as to whether or not this is bad for the citizens. This has been a disaster for the citizens not only for the dismantling of the 4th estate but as evidenced by the economy and our civil liberties. This started with Regan and accelerated by Newt, became a law by Clinton and refined into an art form for President Shit for Brains' administration which has deftly controlled most by the hands of Cheney & Rove for the last 8 years. While John Stewart was sadly, the only voice calling bull shit on the bull shit, any one that watches CNBC or reads Business Week, or most of the current Business Magazine that read like press releases rather than journalism (because they are basically re-written the press releases). Viacom, Clearchannel, Disney/ABC, General Electric/Universal/BC, Cumulus, Citiadel and Fox need to be broken apart or at the very least owner ship caps need to be reversed to pre-Telecommunication Act sizes signed into law by Clinton. Nothing that has gotten bigger has gotten better, the employees, the consumers, the shareholders and the artists have all been harmed in this media consolidation and a very few have gotten very rich at everyone else's expense. These media companies have also amassed so much debt in their consolidation frenzy that they have been purging jobs for the l

    Posted by Bdivney at 03/17/2009 @ 2:43pm

17. Posted by Bdivney at 03/17/2009 @ 2:43pm

    Welcome Comrade Bdivney

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 3:16pm

18. While the idea of "fixing" CNBC is laughable - mainstream business news is notoriously boosterish, with the possible exception of the Wall Street Journal news (that's NEWS) pages - but if by some miracle we had a progressive economics channel on cable, I'd add the following to the list of potential hosts:

    Doug Henwood - a sober, progressive journalist who has been covering economic matters for more than 20 years and has learned that not every downturn represents the end of capitalism as we know it.

    Paul Craig Roberts - I'm not sure who's older, him or Grieder, but this former Reagan Treasury official would offer a healthy conservative alternative voice, one who would disagree with many of his liberal and progressive colleagues while also dissenting from the free trade, finance uber ales orthodoxy of the mainstream press and pundocracy.

    And as hateful as Pat Buchannan is on most social issues, he is not a nut. I bet I could vote the same way as Buchannan on a number of economic issues, even if I did so for completely different reasons.

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/17/2009 @ 3:24pm

19. Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2009 @ 2:30pm

    Oh? Apart from the war, what all do you disagree with Buchanan on, PONTI?

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 3:42pm

20. Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 3:42pm

    "Oh? Apart from the war, what all do you disagree with Buchanan on, PONTI?"

    He's anti-immigration and very strongly anti-Israel, both of which I disagree with. Also, it's been some time since I took him seriously, during his presidential run he took some really wacky positions, I can't even remember what they were but they were pretty bizarre, almost as bizarre as Kucinich's UFO sightings.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2009 @ 4:33pm

21. Honestly, do people really watch CNBC anymore? What is all the hype over? I for one stopped watching cable news years ago, turned off my cable, and moved on. Instead of lamenting BS mega-media, just ignore it!

    and BTW, socialism=neighborliness=a time honored core American value. Stop the demagoguery!

    Posted by ntableman at 03/17/2009 @ 4:54pm

22. No one should be surprised by CNBC's behavior. After all, America is of, by, and for the Super Rich and Big Business.

    Big Media is their cheerleader in their War on America.

    We have been royally screwed by more than a quarter century of Reaganomics, capped by eight years of George W. Bush.

    Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate.

    Bankrupt America both morally and financially. Plant the seeds for the GOP Great Depression II.

    Screw generations of the unborn by making them pay for everything. Take the money and run.

    You can find this and much more in "The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP's War on Iraq and America," (2008, CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages).

    You can now download the entire $25.95 book for FREE at http://www.bushleagueofnations.com .

    I ask for nothing in return, except that you consider using this free resource to help restore and build America.

    James A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA http://www.bushleagueofnations.com [for FREE download of entire $25.95 book]

    Posted by jswanson at 03/17/2009 @ 5:05pm

23. Sorry couldn't help seeing the new connian inverse to this wincer:

    Ingraham represents the political anorexia of the conservative movement: lean on ideas and starved for a way out of the wilderness, it is prone to purging moderates and bingeing on hatred.

    Posted duchamp2008 04:27 PM on 03/17/2009

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/17/2009 @ 6:18pm

24. By my lights this is rather a tempest in a teacup. As ntableman at 03/17/2009 @ 4:54pm said:

    <i>Honestly, do people really watch CNBC anymore? What is all the hype over? I for one stopped watching cable news years ago, turned off my cable, and moved on. Instead of lamenting BS mega-media, just ignore it! </i>

    If, as I've heard, it is true that Cramer's show reaches about 150,000 households, even if all of them are pundits or media executives, what's the big deal? That's about 1% of the average sitcom audience and just 10% of the number of people who attended the inauguration in January. It's a slice of the media pie you can see through. Who cares what that clown says?

    Let's stop sublimating our energy and outrage and get to work rebuilding our institutions.

    Posted by gdutton at 03/17/2009 @ 8:02pm

25. By my lights this is rather a tempest in a teacup. As ntableman at 03/17/2009 @ 4:54pm said:

    <i>Honestly, do people really watch CNBC anymore? What is all the hype over? I for one stopped watching cable news years ago, turned off my cable, and moved on. Instead of lamenting BS mega-media, just ignore it! </i>

    If, as I've heard, it is true that Cramer's show reaches about 150,000 households, even if all of them are pundits or media executives, what's the big deal? That's about 1% of the average sitcom audience and just 10% of the number of people who attended the inauguration in January. It's a slice of the media pie you can see through. Who cares what that clown says?

    Let's stop sublimating our energy and outrage and get to work rebuilding our institutions.

    Posted by gdutton at 03/17/2009 @ 8:03pm

26. Bravo to John Nichols! According to a broker I know, there are a lot of persons misled by CNBC; I fear some of them might be my loved ones. I never watch it, but realize this counry needs a massive cleanup and no place better to begin than the loud mouths in the media. I wish people could get off their conservative/liberal arguments since neither term has any meaning except to call names.

    As for Phil Donahue, I have a great deal of respect for him as a thinker, but he is a lightening rod.

    We need more people to stand up for ethics--we do not need more smart alecs. Let's look beyond the ends of our noses guys. Thanks again.

    Posted by lodar at 03/17/2009 @ 8:19pm

27. Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2009 @ 4:33pm

    You're "pro-immigration"?!?!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 9:22pm

28. Nothing that has gotten bigger has gotten better,....

    Posted by Bdivney at 03/17/2009 @ 2:43pm

    Quotable quote, explains the present Dem Party perfectly......bigger bailouts, bigger problems.....bigger budgets, bigger deficits. Thanks! I'll see if the patters hold.

    Posted by Happy at 03/17/2009 @ 10:04pm

29. "We're asking you to wake up."

    This "gee wizz," if they only "understood," (wtf?) pick your expletive deleted ... crap, makes me want to ummm, expectorate?

    Whatever CNBC did, the above is orders of magnitude worse, and nearer to the real source of the "orthodoxy that pollutes the cable (else-when and where) discourse."

    Posted by V at 03/17/2009 @ 11:44pm

30. Senator Grassley said that the companies receiving bailouts were...

    "sucking on the taxpayer's tit"

    He said this right on tv. I don't know who he was being interviewed by, I just saw the clip. But, what if he had been talking to Michelle Caruso-Cabrerra?

    Posted by koroviev at 03/18/2009 @ 04:09am

31. Posted by jswanson at 03/17/2009 @ 5:05pm

    "No one should be surprised by CNBC's behavior. After all, America is of, by, and for the Super Rich and Big Business."

    That's funny, I thought the last election showed that this country is now actually run for the benefit of those who want something for nothing, paid for by other people. Isn't that what Obama, the Democratic Party, and The Nation is all about?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/18/2009 @ 04:12am

32. Posted by snowball666 at 03/17/2009 @ 3:31pm

    "I would love to see CNBC host Cramer vs Baker."

    I'd like to see Obama vs Rush Limbaugh.

    Oh, that's right - the gutless Messiah ran with his balls between his legs when he was challenged. That's so last week.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/18/2009 @ 04:15am

33. CNBC is one of the very few outlets remaining that will say ANYTHING negative about Obama.

    GET RID OF THEM!!!

    W..E..M..U..S..T..A..L..L..T..H..I..N..K..A..L..I..K..E..

    Posted by bleedingheart at 03/18/2009 @ 06:32am

34. Posted by pontificus at 03/18/2009 @ 04:15am

    Are you REALLY that naive?

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 08:03am

35. Nichols, did you fly out to San Franwacko and smoke some dope with Darladoon?

    If CNBC has any intelligence, they will promptly put that letter in the round file where it belongs.

    This is just another attempt by the left as they strive to end capitalism and our market economy.

    Phil Donohue? please...leave him in with Lenin and the other marxists in their tombs.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 12:26pm

    So as consumers of CNBC demanding that they actually do REAL investigative reporting instead of just taking CEO's at their word is socialism? My God you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are so entrenched in rhetoric you can't even see reality anymore.

    A free press is the key to both Democracy and Capitalism. Maybe if the press had done their job this crash wouldn't have been as severe or maybe it could have been prevented before hand. Instead people like you would rather our press keep their mouths shut and let people destroy this country. Genius LVL. You should actually learn what socialism means.

    "This is just another attempt by the left as they strive to end capitalism and our market economy."

    Before you make completely ridiculous statements like this. I have a dictionary if you need it. If the viewers of CNBC request that they replace their pundits isn't that the DEFINITION of free market capitalism. It's the market fixing itself. CNBC did not do what was demanded of it and now the consumers are asking that they fix it.

    You saying that they should be stood in the way of is you wanting to stand in the way of capitalism.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/18/2009 @ 1:37pm

36. It cheeses off some of our neocon friends here, that is, the mere mention of Pat Buchanan.

    Pat represents to them an uncomfortable reminder of just how lost in the wilderness the latter day Republican Party really is. Pat's about OLD-FASHIONED, i.e., non-neocon values of the old right, such as staying out of unnecessary, costly and irrational foreign conflicts, staying out of people's private lives as is consistent with keeping the peace, etc.

    Simply NOT what our neocon friends here are about, not at all. They're about the empire, such as it is, not the republic.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/18/2009 @ 2:30pm

37. Rush SHOULD get to debate the President: just as soon as he's nominated.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/18/2009 @ 2:32pm

38. Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/18/2009 @ 2:32pm

    PONTI a loyal ditto-head and doesn't question the paradigm set up by HIS "Messiah" (heheh).

    Of course, ask him "Does that mean Dubya would have raced over to the Air America studios to debate Al Franken or Randi Rhodes if 'called out'?"...and he'll come up with a mass of rationalizations OR accidentially spill the truth (same for Rush and his "challenge")...

    "The President doesn't engage in a battle of wits with an un-armed opponent...nor fall for phoney publicity stunts that help the challenger!"

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 3:20pm

39. Things must be improving as the DOW is crawling back up; sans derivatives..., right?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/18/2009 @ 5:09pm

40. Posted by jswanson at 03/17/2009 @ 5:05pm

    You would probably enjoy reading 71 DAYS: THE MEDIA ASSAULT ON OBAMA.

    Posted by yamel at 03/18/2009 @ 5:54pm

41. pontificus asked:

    "....Do you think we could use the Fairness Doctrine to fire anyone at CNBC who questions the enlightened policies of Barack? Obviously, if they don't support Barack, they have no business reporting on financial matters...."

    People in the real world can see pontificus is being sarcastic, and justifiably so.

    But I would think a lot of the resident lib columnists and bloggers here on The Nation are nodding their heads like sheep, saying:

    "Hey, good idea!"

    "Right On!"

    "We need ideas that are helpful, not hate speech from neocons which should not be permitted and that is why the Fairness Doctrine is a must!"

    "Hey Katrina vanden Heuvel, propose this idea the next time you go on a Sunday morning talk show to push back against Karl Rove"

    "Excellent comment. People who advocate harming America by opposing Barack Obama policy should not be allowed to spew their neocon capitalist venom on the public airwaves, owned by the workers and the people"

    and on and on and on.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/19/2009 @ 09:11am

42. But I would think a lot of the resident lib columnists and bloggers here on The Nation are nodding their heads like sheep, saying:

    "Hey, good idea!"----Posted by sjchermak at 03/19/2009 @ 09:11am

    And as soon as that ACTUALLY HAPPENS, you'll be right.

    As soon as that actually happens.

    Meanwhile, I have a few things that a few conservatives have ACTUALLY said....about people who want Pres. Obama to fail...has words like "irrational" and "idiot" in it.

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 03/19/2009 @ 10:07am

43. Oh, Yeah, John thats a list of winners!

    I'd prefer some more objective types, more inclined to tell THE truth rather than LEFT truth.

    If you think I voted for Obama just to exchange right wing media dictators for left wing ones, your mistaken.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/19/2009 @ 12:14pm

44. Posted by sjchermak at 03/19/2009 @ 09:11am

    Do you have any evidence to make that assertion or are you just being childish instead of resorting to actual debate?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/19/2009 @ 1:30pm

45. Cccomfo1,

    Do not lecture me.

    Pontificus put forth a sarcastic remark about libs.

    I was adding in some more sarcasm to say that some libs would not recognize Pontificus' remark as sarcasm and would think it would be a good idea to use the Fairness Doctrine to enforce lib thought on CNBC.

    One has to delve into this once and a while as a relief valve.

    Why, you may ask?

    To start with, this is a thread where the author of the orginating article is thinking about what libs would be good to report on the economy! Libs good at reporting on the economy? Good grief!

    But this thread is mild stuff on a site where:

    1. There was an article/thread advocating a national day of appreciation for Baby killers.

    2. Another article with unbridled glee about what was percieved by the author to be a rebuff of Israel by the Obama administration. The resulting thread brought a whole slew of anti-Israel venom out of the woodwork by the bloggers, anti-Israel hate and invective so hot and heavy and thick you could cut it with a knife.

    3. There was another thread a few days ago where I pointed out, corrcectly so, that the Confederate flag is not racist. This brought anti-Southern invective from hyper-intellectual and hyper-santimonious libs commenting about "crackers, etc", along with the ultra-smart and ultra-wise and ultra-intellectual blogger ficheye "having fun" - where if you post back to ficheye, then ficheye lets you know that as a master manipulator you were just being provoked, and you have taken the "bait". (which I decided not to take that day).

    And what I have mentioned is just part of the bizzaro world that makes up this site.

    Sometimes one needs to just "have fun", as the great ficheye would say.

    So do not lecture me.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/19/2009 @ 1:56pm

46. So do not lecture me.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/19/2009 @ 1:56pm |

    Sounds like you are just as sanctimonious as the people you are criticizing. Why is it when people call you guys racist you crow about being too PC. Then you guys call people anti-Israel just because some of us choose to seek a practical solution to problems instead of bothering with inane rhetoric. You know how many times I have been called an anti-Semite because I realize that there is never going to be a solution unless it involves two states in Israel.

    You come on here and complain about the discourse with such venom but you are no better than anyone you criticize. You come on here to spout what is essentially rhetoric. I didn't lecture you. I asked for proof. You are lecturing me and for no particular reason at that.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/19/2009 @ 2:40pm

47. Cccomfo1,

    You asked for proof but also wondered (correctly so, I suppose) if I was being childish instead of debating.

    So that was not just a request for proof from you, it was a kind of lecture.

    A lecture I don't need just because I engage in some sarcasm.

    I get a little irritated when people who serve as "discourse police" seem to only patrol the right lanes of the information superhighway for "discourse violations", when there are plenty of violators in the left lanes as well.

    As far as the thread I was referring to being full of anti-Israeli venom, the reason I said that is because the thread was full of anti-Israeli venom.

    I do not mean to imply that every last post on that thread was venomous, and I will state for the record that your postings on that subject are not venomous, but it is a fact if you go back to that thread and go through the posts that there is plenty of anti-Israeli hate on that thread, that is just pure hate and venom and not a discussion of the issues or a search for practical solutions.

    How about the discourse from "marxist-socialist", for example?

    That is why I made the comment I did.

    As far as Israel, by the way, the Israelis did not object to a two-state solution when it was proposed in 1948. It was the "other side", if you will, who opposed it, because it meant accepting Israel, something the "other side" has never been willing to do.

    And there is no world pressure on the "other side" to do so, in fact, the world's inclination is opposite. The U.N. is gearing up for another Durban "conference on racism" - the last one turned into a bash-Israel conference.

    This upcoming conference promises to be the same thing, only this time Canada will not attend - the Canadians want no part of this farce. God Bless Canada.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/19/2009 @ 5:37pm

48. Posted by sjchermak at 03/19/2009 @ 5:37pm

    The reasons the Canadians want no part of this farce is because it's at the point where the world is saying screw it let them just kill each other. The world won't support Israel unless Israel supports a two-state solution. As long as they have they have had some support from the world. Now that Israels views on a two-state solution are going away, world support is going away. It's no coincidence that the election of Netanyahu will lose them a lot of support around the world and put them more on the fringe. There was an interesting article about it in the NYTIMES today. Basically saying Israel is putting a ton of money into PR to recoop what is being lost.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/19/2009 @ 5:46pm

49. See, I told you guys.

    Mention "Pat Buchanan" and our neocon friends go bananas the rest of the evening!

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/19/2009 @ 7:19pm