Tuesday (Monday!) Highlights

G’day.

  1. Beating a dead horse as it were.
  2. Yikes.
  3. The crux of the liberal notion that in government lies the solution.
  4. Mr Hoffman, justly mourned or a death enabled.
  5. Clever.
  6. The upcoming political moves by the Admin noted.
  7. Lame duckisms.
  8. Two governments move toward economic suicide.
  9. Obamacare looking more and more like a cunning plan.
  10. Well, heck, that describes everyone who came of age in the Nixon era.
  11. Mr Obama interview notes “politicians are liars“.
  12. Cool tech.
  13. 29ers, the new trend. Thank your Democrat leaders for that.
  14. Hawkings and the black hole.
  15. Some towns have snow removal problems, others don’t.
  16. Obama and his “art history” diss … setting aside why he didn’t go for the actual popular fluff majors.

19 Responses to Tuesday (Monday!) Highlights

  1. 11.Mr Obama interview notes “politicians are liars“.

    I’ve still yet to hear what exactly the GOP beef with Benghazi really is. Bill O’Reilly took his opportunity to interview the president and focus on when Leon Panetta told Obama the consulate was attacked whether Panetta said “our consolate was attacked” or “our consoluate has been terrorist attacked”….because for some inexplicable reason the ‘terrorist’ adjective had to be used before anyone knew anything.

    Obama rightly pointed out:

    1. It’s not reasonable to expect someone to recall the exact phrasing someone used the moment it happened.

    2. Before one has any info, you can’t really know. Even today the attack looks less like a terrorist attack and more like a military attack carried out by a local militia, the terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘al qaeda’ seem constantly inserted because it seems to the right all violent things that happen in desert countries where Arabic is the main language are ‘terrorism’ and ‘al qaeda’.

  2. 9.Obamacare looking more and more like a cunning plan.

    Not clear why this is important. Your health insurance is between you and the insurance company, even if you found and signed up for it via the web site. If the web site has the wrong deductible it’s still the insurance company itself that has to make sure they charge you the correct amount.

  3. Boonton,

    If the web site has the wrong deductible it’s still the insurance company itself that has to make sure they charge you the correct amount.

    And because your information with the government can’t be corrected exactly how do they (being either the patient/individual or the insurer) get their medicare rebate?

  4. Boonton,

    It’s not reasonable to expect someone to recall the exact phrasing someone used the moment it happened.

    It is however reasonable to recall the exact phrasing when this has come up in many conversations (see the 2nd to last paragraph). So he knew exactly what he had said. It’s a particular bugaboo between right and left right now. When an Islamic terrorist attacks the right notices that the attacker is (a) committing an act of terror and (b) that he was a Muslim. The left fails to note either, typically calling it “an attack” and omitting any religious affiliation.

    Even today the attack looks less like a terrorist attack and more like a military attack carried out by a local militia

    ?? What distinction are you trying make?

    You’ve admitted to collusion between the Egyptian leaders and the Libyan in command of the attackers. “Al Qaeda” is a extra-national loose affiliation of terror groups. Apparently it has to be the “right” card-carrying members of the particular group or it’s not a extra-national affiliation that concerns you. Is that right?

    it seems to the right all violent things that happen in desert countries where Arabic is the main language are ‘terrorism’ and ‘al qaeda’.

    Well, from where I’m standing you’re firmly of the opinion that some obscure video cause the attack. That’s just as dumb as thinking some backtalk by a Jew or two in Germany was the cause of Reichskristallnacht. Or the cause of that millions of Brits, Frenchmen and Germans died in WWI because their flags were different.

    The latest Benghazi insult was that the CYA Congressional whitewash decided Mr Stevens was at fault for the personnel reduction as noted sometime earlier. Let’s see, Mr Obama said he’d “get the person(s) responsible.” Well, they arrested the guy you posted the YouTube video so he guess figures he got him. Convenient, but alas, untrue.

  5. It is however reasonable to recall the exact phrasing when this has come up in many conversations (see the 2nd to last paragraph). So he knew exactly what he had said.

    At 4PM EST (9 pm Benghazi time) a security agent at Benghazi hears ‘loud noises’ by the front gate.

    By 10PM the fighting was over and those on the grounds were not sure where Ambassador Stevens was other than that they believed he got out of the building.

    By 10:43AM the next day Obama makes his Rose Garden statement referring to it as an act of terror.

    I’m not really clear how the world would have been any better had the word ‘terror’ been used, say, 10 hours later rather than 12? Nor do I really understand the importance of who said ‘terror’ first, if at all, between 10 PM and 10 AM the next day when various people were trying to figure out what exactly happened on the other side of the world. Nor do I see what difference it would have made if Obama had said ‘terrorist act’ rather than ‘acts of terror’. This is why Romney made a fool of himself in the debate. Not because the mean moderator insisted on the facts being straight. But because he himself really had no clear idea what he (or the right) was upset about.

    ?? What distinction are you trying make?

    There seems to be a lot of ‘odd’ definitions of terrorism afoot here. For example, some conservatives seem to think that it couldn’t have been terrorism if it was motivated by the video (why?) or that it couldn’t have been terrorism if it was ‘spontaneous’ rather than well planned in advance (again why?).

    Let’s revert to a more formal definition of terrorism. Terrorism usually means a violent attack by a non-military group or individual. When the IRA blew up a car that was terrorism. When Tim McVeigh blew up the Fed building in Ok, that was terrorism. When Japan’s air force bombed Pearl Harbor, that was war. When Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumpter, that was war (even though the Confederate troops were not recognized as the army of a legitimate nation…from the North’s POV). So on a spectrum of violence, we have at the bottom individual criminal acts, then moving up we come to acts of terrorism, then acts of military aggression by informal military structures (militias, ‘warlords’, bands of pirates etc) finally to military acts by formal armed forces. I admit there’s alway some fuzziness along the borders here. For example, was the unabomber a terrorist or simply a mentally ill person who killed people with bombs? If you say he was a terrorist then are all serial killers terrorists? Ted Bundy killed more people than the unabomber, would he not be a terrorist simply because he used less explosive methods?

    So guess what, if the local militia leader decides to have his ‘army’ attack a compound, that’s not terrorism. It doesn’t matter if his motivation is a movie, some fiery sermons by TV preachers, or even if he got an email from Al Qaeda asking him to do it. Strictly speaking we can’t even say for sure today the attack was terrorism let alone 12 hours after it happened. That is, of course, using a definition of terrorism that’s a bit more mature than something like “Arab Muslim guys blowing stuff up = terrorism”

    You’ve admitted to collusion between the Egyptian leaders and the Libyan in command of the attackers.

    Errr no, we know that Egyptian TV is often consumed in Libya and Egyptian TV was obsessed with the video and fiery condemnations of it. We know the militia leader in the Benghazi area was a rather eccentric person, possibly mentally ill. He had worked with the resistance to fight the Qadaffi regime but he was also radically opposed to Western powers.

    “Al Qaeda” is a extra-national loose affiliation of terror groups. Apparently it has to be the “right” card-carrying members of the particular group or it’s not a extra-national affiliation that concerns you.

    Actually it’s many things. There’s the small Al Qaeda organization that was started by Bin Laden and his Egyptian commarade, which still exists but has been decimated by the loss of it’s top leaders and the intensive efforts of the US to find the rest. There are groups that officially ‘affiliate’ themselves with Al Qaeda and pledge to work with them on attacks. Then there’s an ‘Al Qaeda brand’ which is donned and dropped by various people around the Muslim world as taste suits them but without an actual link to Al Qaeda in either official or semi-official form.

    If you want an analogy, consider Pirates of the Carribean. On one hand you have the official movies and merchandise from the Disney Corporation. Then you may have other corporations that license the brand (say a themed cruise from Carnival or Denny’s doing a ‘Pirates menu’). Then you have those with no connection at all, say fan fiction groups or a street gang that likes to don Pirates t-shirts.

    The latest Benghazi insult was that the CYA Congressional whitewash decided Mr Stevens was at fault for the personnel reduction as noted sometime earlier.

    Actually that report also asserted it could have been prevented had the administration added more security to the compound. Stevens was criticized for taking security risks, which he did. I’m unclear why you think that was a whitewash since the moment it was issued lots of right wing talking heads revened up their Benghazi spin machine to assert once again it demonstrated they were right about Benghazi (although they can’t ever actually clearly tell us what they were right about). My problem is that this is all hindsight. Sure now that we know there was an attack there on 9/11 we could have prevented it with a time machine. How does that help us? That’s why I say the first question such a report should answer is why is it being released now? Why wasn’t it released *before* the attack ever happened with the title “If we act now we can prevent a horrible attack in Benghazi!”?

    Let’s see, Mr Obama said he’d “get the person(s) responsible.” Well, they arrested the guy you posted the YouTube video so he guess figures he got him. Convenient, but alas, untrue.

    Years passed between 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden’s demise. Were you carping about George Bush failing to bring those accountable for 9/11 to justice while Saddam Hussein was in the interim? I think not. Do you have any evidence that shows obvious things that could be done to bring the attackers to justice aren’t? If not I think an 8 year vow of silence on your part in regards to this would be quite justified.

  6. And because your information with the government can’t be corrected exactly how do they (being either the patient/individual or the insurer) get their medicare rebate?

    Medicare rebate? If you’re on Medicare you just stay on Medicare, there’s no exchanges for you to worry about.

    As for information ‘cant be corrected’, from what I understand the exchange is essentially a bit like a dating site. On one hand you have people who want to buy insurance, on the other companies selling it.

    So what happens on a dating site if you list your age as 35 when it’s really 34? You go on a date and both of you like each other and go on more dates. Is it important that the dating site be able to ‘correct’ your profile to be 34? As long as you and her know the right ages and act accordingly there’s not much of an IT reason to put a lot of effort into fixing that.

    As for how insurance companies get paid the right subsidy, not really my problem. There’s lots of IT people on both sides of that equation, when someone wants to pay me to fix that problem I’ll consider the offer.

    Programming isn’t really my area of knowledge, but I do think I have some ability to look at the meta-arguments people make and offer some evaluations of them.

    Many of these posts seem to fall into the category of “here’s an IT problem, what’s the solution?” and it’s by people who know little or nothing of how ecommerce sites work. My answer then is “let the programmers figure it out”. Are there other ecommerce sites that sell insurance from multiple vendors? Yes. Are there other sites that take and make payments? Yes. Clearly such problems are solveable then unless you show me that this is unprecedented and it violates some law of physics. Not seeing that yet.

    So recently in the world of ecommerce, I ordered a wireless router site-to-store from Walmart. Site told me it would be available to pick up in 4 days. 4 days later I show up at the store and not only do they not have it, they can’t find the order nor can they even give me a number to call the site. At home the site only lets me make tickets which they take a full day to reply too. I get replies that they are ‘investigating’, then that the item is out of stock and they would like to reverse the order. I send them a screen shot show that their site lists the item still as ‘available’. Then I hear nothing until I get a message that it’s at the store, where I go and pick it up.

    This is a problem with the GOP’s reliance on website follies. Basically we are at the point with websites where book readers were with books right around the transition from hand copying to moveable type. Errors and botched versions were numerous. If you wanted to be a book collector, you had to pay a lot of attention to quality problems.

    While most companies don’t talk about it, a lot of systems are deployed to fail. Send it out and let the complaints that come in tell us what has to be fixed. Not the best way to do things of course, except we are used to it. These days most websites work more often than they don’t, but they don’t a lot more often than you’d accept from things like your car, your fridge or your toaster. When stories of the exchange sites not working are sandwhiched between stories of Target losing millions of people’s credit card numbers and hackers pulling off virtual bank heists how much mileage you’re going to get is probably going to vary.

  7. Boonton,

    Nor do I see what difference it would have made if Obama had said ‘terrorist act’ rather than ‘acts of terror’. This is why Romney made a fool of himself in the debate.

    In the debate, Obama said “I said terrorist” and immediately the moderator jumped in to confirm (even though (a) she couldn’t have known that and (b) it was in point of fact, incorrect. Mr Obama in retrospect would have had this pointed out in the post-mortem and today would know that he did not (in fact) say that even though now he continues his falsehood (but that as noted is to be expected). So Romney didn’t make a fool of himself, (as the linked poster notes this was likely collusion between Obama and the moderator) as a way to stifle that avenue in the debate. And Obama did in fact cover himself quite well in this affair. He had most of the explicit lies (it was rioters, it was the video, &c) put out by his people and no by himself directly giving himself deniability.

    You have a problem with the video. You’d like to pretend it was a cause. But as I pointed out, even if Goering’s minions screamed out to crowds of brownshirts about the acts of particular Jewish financiers before Reichskristallnacht … the acts of those Jewish people were not the cause of the violence. This militia attacking was not “caused” by a video or by mullah’s in Egypt ranting on TV.

    If you want an analogy, consider Pirates of the Carribean. On one hand you have the official movies and merchandise from the Disney Corporation. Then you may have other corporations that license the brand (say a themed cruise from Carnival or Denny’s doing a ‘Pirates menu’). Then you have those with no connection at all, say fan fiction groups or a street gang that likes to don Pirates t-shirts.

    You were doing OK until the last sentence. If “Pirates of the Caribbean” are the particular problem then there is no point in separating “real” PoC which are owned by Disney, those which are licensed from Disney, and those which are just aping the methods and look. If you’re going after all such stuff then there sticking to the “PoC is just those things owned by Disney” misses the point. You’re perfectly within reason to call it all PoC and not make the distinction between Denny’s PoC-ish stuff and the real thing. If it’s bad then you are against all of it.

    Actually that report also asserted it could have been prevented had the administration added more security to the compound. Stevens was criticized for taking security risks, which he did.

    The linked piece by Steven’s surviving assistant complains that the report blamed Stevens for the removal of personal which was (a) not his decision to make and (b) a decision he opposed and (c) moved the blame away from the person who actually did decide to move personnel away. This is called a whitewash. I’m unclear on how this is unclear.

    Years passed between 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden’s demise. Were you carping about George Bush failing to bring those accountable for 9/11 to justice while Saddam Hussein

    The search for OBM took years and didn’t start when Obama took office. Have you heard any mention of the search for … uhm, for whom is it he is he searching? Mr Bin Laden’s name was not forgotten and was highly public. “I will not rest” (and we’ll never talk about this so you don’t remember when I let it go). There was a public bounty at the very least. Is there one here? Cite?

    Do you have any evidence that shows obvious things that could be done to bring the attackers to justice aren’t?

    The lack of evidence that anything at all is being done is the evidence. Have you any evidence that anything at all has been tried?

    My problem is that this is all hindsight.

    No. Your defense is that it is all hindsight. Which means you can never criticize anything? Have you defended the Iraq invasion in public letting saying “in hindsight reconstruction of nations is more expensive than we thought but you can’t discuss that … it was in hindsight and we can’t remark on that”. Look Libya was just post-civil war. It was unstable and you had lots of independent uncontrolled militias in the area. The notion that we could secure an Embassy in the region with 4 security personnel does that pass a smell test for you? Seriously?

  8. In the debate, Obama said “I said terrorist” and immediately the moderator jumped in to confirm (even though (a) she couldn’t have known that and (b) it was in point of fact, incorrect.

    The Rose Garden statement was public knowledge, so I don’t know how you can assert a. AS for b, if Romney really did care enough about such subtle word distinctions he could have s imply said “acts of terror” aren’t the same as calling it a “terrorist act”, the first indicates a man who doesn’t love America enough like Mr. Obama, the second indicates a man who does like me!” He didn’t make that statement because he knew it was stupid.

    Romney didn’t make a fool of himself, (as the linked poster notes this was likely collusion between Obama and the moderator) as a way to stifle that avenue in the debate

    If you guys had a clear coherent complaint nothing would be stifled.

    You have a problem with the video. You’d like to pretend it was a cause. But as I pointed out, even if Goering’s minions screamed out to crowds of brownshirts about the acts of particular Jewish financiers before Reichskristallnacht … the acts of those Jewish people were not the cause of the violence. This militia attacking was not “caused” by a video or by mullah’s in Egypt ranting on TV.

    In this analogy you seem to be comparing Egyptian TV mullahs ranting about the video to the Jews of Europe. That’s a pretty painful linkup there, I’ll let that go for a bit since the deep cold in Chicago is probably addling your brain a bit.

    Cause here is getting kind of flakey. The cause of the violence is that men (I presume no women) decided to open fire on the compound. Even if a militia leader ordered them to do so, ultimately that is the ’cause’.

    But more important in this debate is figuring out what will cause you to issue a coherent answer here. You asserted the cause was Al Qaeda and that too now seems false. The video, ironically, does seem to be a cause although not what was first suspected, a disorganized spontaneous mob which is what appears to have happened in Egypt.

    What exactly are you trying to complain about? The video theory was pretty plausible given the information available at the time, nonetheless it was issued with oddles of fair balance. There was no debate about whether it was terrorism (the terrorism argument seems to be premised on the idea that if it was the video it couldn’t be terrorism….which makes no sense).

    Pirates:

    You were doing OK until the last sentence. If “Pirates of the Caribbean” are the particular problem then there is no point in separating “real” PoC which are owned by Disney, those which are licensed from Disney, and those which are just aping the methods and look

    The first two (Disney and licensees) you are right. The third though you are wrong. A street gang that likes to wear Pirates t-shirts is not going to suddenly turn into law abiding citizens if all such merchandise is discontinued.

    The linked piece by Steven’s surviving assistant complains that the report blamed Stevens for the removal of personal which was (a) not his decision to make and (b) a decision he opposed and (c) moved the blame away from the person who actually did decide to move personnel away.

    And who exactly was that?

    And let’s be frank here, if I was assigned to be the ambassador to Libya, or Syria, or Iraq I’d stay inside a compound with ten walls. Forget about ‘meeting the people’.

    “I will not rest” (and we’ll never talk about this so you don’t remember when I let it go). There was a public bounty at the very least. Is there one here? Cite?

    How did the ‘bounty’ work for Bin Laden? At least there if someone showed up with Bin Laden we’d know we had our man. If some militia turns over some people in handcuffs claiming they were the Benghazi attackers, what would we be able to do with them? Take their word for it?

  9. Boonton,

    In this analogy you seem to be comparing Egyptian TV mullahs ranting about the video to the Jews of Europe.

    No. Read it again. The Egyptian TV mullah’s are the Goering and brownshirts ranting about the evils of the Jews. I guess the weather is affecting you more than me.

    The cause of the violence is that men (I presume no women) decided to open fire on the compound. Even if a militia leader ordered them to do so, ultimately that is the ’cause’.

    That’s stupid. It’s like noting of the piano dropping on your head … that the “cause of the piano dropping on your head is the piano falling”. Look at the WWII point. What was the “cause” of the anti-Semetic violence? Was it something that the Jews did? Or was it that the Germany leaders needed a rallying point and an internal enemy that they could focus their people upon and they chose Jews (in an atmosphere in which antiSemitism was so far beyond the pale) as a horse they could ride to power. The Egyptian mullah’s use anti-Western hatred in much the same way, as a external focus for their people which they use as a conduit to power. Particular things they focus upon in the West are not the “cause” of their hatred or the trigger. They are pretexts used to spur riots and violence and make themselves more powerful and influential. The latter urge is the cause. What this tells you is that the particulars of what trigger, in this case an old You Tube, is not the cause or even important. If they didn’t find that, they’d have certainly latched onto something else and then you’d be claiming that was the cause.

    The video theory was pretty plausible given the information available at the time, nonetheless it was issued with oddles of fair balance.

    No. See above, the “video as cause” was never plausible. Still isn’t.

    does seem to be a cause although not what was first suspected, a disorganized spontaneous mob which is what appears to have happened in Egypt.

    This is one of the sticking points. Mr Obama sent his troops out claiming riots (and the video as cause for those … which they weren’t, btw) when he and his people knew there was no riot in Benghazi. This was a lie. This is a problem.

    The third though you are wrong. A street gang that likes to wear Pirates t-shirts is not going to suddenly turn into law abiding citizens if all such merchandise is discontinued.

    As I said, you went off the rails on the street gang thing in your analogy. I dropped that. If Bin Laden &c was Disney there is no place in this analogy for a street gang, so I dropped it. Disney & Dennys and other perhaps (unlicensed) Chinese/Asian merchants make sense. Street gangs don’t fit.

    Ok. So the bounty didn’t work … exactly what evidence do you have that Mr Obama is doing a damn thing about this? Oh, wait you have one statement of him in passing … from probably the most dishonest politician of our generation. What you take on faith boggles.

  10. Boonton,
    And btw, regarding Mr Obama’s “search for the perpetrators” … when I asked for a “cite” that wasn’t for a cite of a bounty, but a cite for a piece of evidence that this is not being forgotten and ignored.

  11. No. Read it again. The Egyptian TV mullah’s are the Goering and brownshirts ranting about the evils of the Jews.

    OK, so what’s your point then?

    Look at the WWII point. What was the “cause” of the anti-Semetic violence? Was it something that the Jews did? Or was it that the Germany leaders needed a rallying point and an internal enemy that they could focus their people upon and they chose Jews

    Which circles back on the population. Why did inciting violent against Jews work in 1930’s Germany to bring the Nazi’s to power while today, in, say, the US Neonazi’s get nowhere?

    I would say cause and effect get blurry here. Anti-semetic messages was something the population was primed to hear back then. Likewise the leaders cultivated that seed to expand upon those emotions to make them more potent and powerful than they otherwise would have been. Hence they could inspire the population to do things later on in the 30’s like burn Jewish shops and temples that the population wouldn’t have been inclined to do a decade before.

    No. See above, the “video as cause” was never plausible. Still isn’t.

    Why not? Do you have special insights into the mind of the militia leader who is currently the top suspect in the attack?

    This is one of the sticking points. Mr Obama sent his troops out claiming riots (and the video as cause for those … which they weren’t, btw) when he and his people knew there was no riot in Benghazi.

    1. No evidence that anyone was ‘sent out’ to push this point has ever been produced…and the point wasn’t even pushed. You push a point by saying “this is what happened”, when you qualify the theory with a lot of “information still coming in” etc. you’re not pushing a point.

    2. The video was clearly linked to numerous riots around the Arab world and was linked to the attack on our embassy in Egypt…which happened at almost exactly the same time. Administration officials had at least three issues they had to address that week:

    a. The attack in Benghazi
    b. The attack on the Egyptian embassy
    c. The riots/demonstrations/sermons around the Muslim world over the video

    3. Sticking point? Then why didn’t Romney raise this in the debate? Instead he raised the question of whether or not Obama said ‘terrorism’ after the attack. If this was clearly the ‘sticking point’ Romney could have brushed aside the moderator by talking about the video statement being the problem. The reason he didn’t is because Republicans have changed their narrative at least two, probably more, times.

    As I said, you went off the rails on the street gang thing in your analogy. I dropped that.

    Not really, it’s quite easy for a street gang to adopt Pirates as a brand without any real connection to Disney. It’s very easy for various Islamic groups to pick up and drop the Al Qaeda banner. Trying to assert any and all attacks on the US by Islamic groups in the middle east is Al Qaeda is about as silly as saying any street protest or riot with people wearing Guy Fawkes masks is the work of Anonymous.

    Ok. So the bounty didn’t work … exactly what evidence do you have that Mr Obama is doing a damn thing about this?

    I’m sorry if the problem is that no efforts are being made to bring the Benghazi attackers to some type of justice then why did your nominee for President waste his opportunity diddling about word use? Why didn’t he say something like “I don’t care what was said 12 hours or 12 days after the attack, I care about what we are doing right now to get those bastards!!!”

    In fact, not only did Romney fail to make this statement, so did you and so have the Republicans. The GOPer’s on the gov’t oversight and other committees have security clearences and can demand to see classified intelligence. Instead of trying to figure out why people thought there was a connection to the video why aren’t they trying to evaluate whether more could be done to bring the attackers to justice?

  12. Boonton,

    OK, so what’s your point then?

    The point is that just because the Brownshirt leaders ranted for a week about a particular Jewish financier’s investment or action enraged and caused riots in three cities doesn’t mean that Jewish man’s action caused the riots. It was a pretext. Lacking that particular individual another would have been found. Likewise the particular video did not cause the riots. Look the Brownshirts might say the video (Jewish man) cause the riots. We in the West know (a) that isn’t true and (b) should not (as the administration did) support that claim in any way.

    The reason he didn’t is because Republicans have changed their narrative at least two, probably more, times.

    I, however, have not.

    Not really, it’s quite easy for a street gang to adopt Pirates as a brand without any real connection to Disney.

    So? You said PoC was a problem. PoC is not “another street gang.” Al-Qaeda is not some harmless group making refrigerator magnets that evil terrorist groups are stealing to use as a symbol of their terror.

  13. The point is that just because the Brownshirt leaders ranted for a week about a particular Jewish financier’s investment or action enraged and caused riots in three cities doesn’t mean that Jewish man’s action caused the riots.

    The ‘Jewish man’ in the analogy would be the guy who made the video? No one ever said it was him.

    Likewise the particular video did not cause the riots. Look the Brownshirts might say the video (Jewish man) cause the riots.

    Yes, ultimately the riots and violence were caused by the individuals who actually rioted or did violence. So you’re telling us riots are caused by rioters. Violent acts are caused by people doing violence. Thanks, very helpful.

    I, however, have not.

    you’ve yet to arrive at a single narrative, let alone change it.

    So? You said PoC was a problem. PoC is not “another street gang.”

    No, I pointed out PoC can be 3 different types of groups ranging from the ‘official’ PoC as put out by Disney down to groups that may done the images, logos, and so on of PoC but in reality have no connection. If you eliminated PoC because they are a problem, you wouldn’t eliminate those groups since despite using masks or tshirts, they aren’t really part of PoC.

    For example, consider this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/03/al-qaeda-denounces-syrian-jihadist-group-isis.html#url=/articles/2014/02/03/al-qaeda-denounces-syrian-jihadist-group-isis.html

    Here we have a group in Syria that calls itself an Al Qaeda affiliate. You have Al Qaeda saying they aren’t. What exactly is an Al Qaeda affiliate? Someone who takes orders from them? Someone who says they are? Al Qaeda could be totally eliminated tomorrow yet 50 years from now a group could slap their logos, flags and so forth onto their group and declare that they are Al Qaeda.

    In tribal cultures, allegiances and alliances are very loose and subject to rapid changes. Today some militia leader who controls a hundred fighters in a village or two declares he’s with the Taliban, tomorrow he throws in his lot with the ‘official gov’t’, then he switches to Al Qaeda etc. Trying to analyze such a region the way you would, say, the Cold War or WWII where there were sharp distinctions between who was on what side is not going to work.

  14. Boonton,

    No one ever said it was him.

    You did. Ms Clinton did. You cheered when he was arrested and Ms Clinton as Sec/State applauded it.

    No, I pointed out PoC can be 3 different types of groups ranging from the ‘official’ PoC as put out by Disney down to groups that may done the images, logos, and so on of PoC but in reality have no connection

    But you also said PoC “was a problem like al-Qaeda” and that different groups (Disney, licensees, pirates of look-alike stuff, and gangs .. which of these three doesn’t belong … and if Disney PoC is al-Qaeda what is a gang? See it doesn’t make sense).

    you’ve yet to arrive at a single narrative, let alone change it

    I’ve had several criticism and I haven’t changed them.

  15. You did. Ms Clinton did. You cheered when he was arrested and Ms Clinton as Sec/State applauded it.

    A con man brazenly violated his probation, probably as part of yet another scam. Why shouldn’t he get arrested.

    Ms Clinton applauded? Cite?

    But you also said PoC “was a problem like al-Qaeda” and that different groups

    I never said that PoC was a ‘problem’.

  16. Boonton,

    A con man brazenly violated his probation, probably as part of yet another scam. Why shouldn’t he get arrested.

    Ok. Let’s move the question to the German/Nazi arena where things might be clearer. One of the Jews the Nazis are foaming at the mouth about is an American national .. in America. They riot in four cities and Jews and business are torched. This was a common occurrence for years before the war, so it’s not a big stretch. Say the Jew in America actually was guilty of a crime. Does FDR or his Sec/State announce loudly that they are arresting him? If they did, would you applaud that tacit approval of anti-Semitism? Or … what might be better done, if you are going to arrest him, do it and don’t talk about it. All you do from the international/diplomatic standpoint is call the Nazi spade a spade, i.e., say loud and clear that this is activity is horrible violence and unacceptable in a civilized society.

    In the days and weeks following the attack, President Obama and other administration officials noted that the video had sparked violent incidents at a number of U.S. diplomatic facilities and stated it was also a prime catalyst for the Benghazi attack.

    That’s from wiki.

    Question: Do you think the video author would have been arrested and his arrest noted by Clinton and Obama if the riots had not occurred? I asked you then did you think there was pressure on the judicial department from the fed executive dept in the matter of his arrest?

    “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”
    – Hillary Clinton, Sept. 14, 2012

    Yes. Applauded. You supported it as well.

    I never said that PoC was a ‘problem’.

    I looked and you are right. But then the analogy has no connection to al-qaeda and groups that are almost identical but have a different name.

  17. Your question seems to be able to be condensed to:

    “The Nazis are screaming about Jews being bad in Germany. Should the US respond to this by declaring that it will not arrest any Jewish person who happens to be committing a crime in America, even if they are doing it in front of the public stage?” I’d say no, Nazi’s in Germany isn’t an argument to say a Jewish person in America gets a free pass to break the law.

    In the days and weeks following the attack, President Obama and other administration officials noted that the video had sparked violent incidents at a number of U.S. diplomatic facilities and stated it was also a prime catalyst for the Benghazi attack.

    This statement is undisputed for a number of US diplomatic facilities and now appears to be true for Benghazi as well. I’m unclear what it is you’re complaining about now.

    And I’ll again ask why if this was the complaint why was Romney unable to articulate it? Why the trip up over whether or not Obama said ‘terrorist’ or not if that never had anything to do with the issue to begin with? Ohhh wait, your complaint is that not enough was done to find who did it. Well how is correctly or incorrectly speculating that the motive behind it was the video relevant to that complaint?

    Question: Do you think the video author would have been arrested and his arrest noted by Clinton and Obama if the riots had not occurred?

    Do I think he would have been arrested if he didn’t get famous by violating the terms of his probation? Probably not. Look if Paris Hilton’s drivers license is suspended and a month later all the tabloids photograph her driving around town, you can’t really complain when she’s brought up on charges. Yes plenty of non-famous people drive while suspended and never get caught or charged. If you break the law you run the risk of getting caught and that’s the nature of the dice you choose to roll.

    “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

    Show me the transcript please. Assuming this hearsay statement is accurate you seem to be morphing it’s meaning. Was he arrested for making that film or was the person who made that film arrested? Two totally different things.

    I looked and you are right. But then the analogy has no connection to al-qaeda and groups that are almost identical but have a different name.

    They are totally identical in that the analogy illustrates the problem with simply lumping in all things Muslim as ‘al-qaeda’.

  18. Boonton,

    “The Nazis are screaming about Jews being bad in Germany. […] I’d say no, Nazi’s in Germany isn’t an argument to say a Jewish person in America gets a free pass to break the law.

    You’re not understanding what I”m saying. Let me try again. Pretext is not cause. By publicly admitting to the pretext as wrong you are validating the pretext. This is an egregious error. (note as well, I didn’t say not to arrest the law-breaker, just to do it without any public fanfare, i.e., with as much federal/executive notice and attention as if this had not been chosen as pretext).

    now appears to be true for Benghazi as well

    I see, pretext as cause is not the official position. Doesn’t make it true.

    Probably not

    Then he shouldn’t have been arrested as that validates pretext as cause. The actions of a particular Jew (pretext) was not the cause of the Nazi riot.

    Was he arrested for making that film or was the person who made that film arrested? Two totally different things.

    I’m unclear on the distinction vis a vis pretext validation.

    They are totally identical in that the analogy illustrates the problem with simply lumping in all things Muslim as ‘al-qaeda’.

    Whose doing that? That claim is a straw man. Nobody is claiming non-violent Muslims anywhere are “al-qaeda” and are the enemy. Try an analogy that actually means something relevant.

  19. (note as well, I didn’t say not to arrest the law-breaker, just to do it without any public fanfare, i.e., with as much federal/executive notice and attention as if this had not been chosen as pretext).

    The only fanfare I noticed was media that showed up when he was arrested. I recall he wasn’t forced to do the ‘perp walk’ (where they make you walk in front of the media without hiding your face.

    So I’m not really seeing what you’re asking. You’re not saying he shouldn’t have been arrested, you’re saying he should have been arrested with less ‘fanfare’ which I’m not really seeing is possible when you’re dealing with a minor celebrity of the moment.

    I see, pretext as cause is not the official position. Doesn’t make it true

    There’s an ‘official position’? Hmmm that’s interesting, who make sthe ‘official position’? You admit then that the video was pretext. By doing this you vacate any right to complain about the administration addressing the video. Just because something is ‘pretext’ doesn’t mean that it doesn’t need to be addressed.

    Then he shouldn’t have been arrested as that validates pretext as cause. The actions of a particular Jew (pretext) was not the cause of the Nazi riot.

    There’s a bit of a problem in your analogy, no one thinks the Nazi’s had any legitimate gripe about the Jewish financier. Muslims do have cause to be offended at the movie, the problem is what is and isn’t a legitimate response to being offended (protest ok, riot not ok) and who should be blamed for the movie (here some understanding is required that the US has freedom of speech which protects offensive speech but does not endorse it).
    Re: guy who made the movie arrested versus arrested for making the movie
    I’m unclear on the distinction vis a vis pretext validation.

    You already said he should be arrested. Opting not to arrest him for violating his probation would amount to endorsement of his speech…which the US gov’t has no obligation to do.

    Whose doing that? That claim is a straw man. Nobody is claiming non-violent Muslims anywhere are “al-qaeda” and are the enemy

    You’ve claimed the Benghazi attack was Al-Qaeda. How have you come to that conclusion? Do you have some special knowledge not available to the rest of us?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>