The Commissar of the Politburo Diktat 2.0 does the incredibly difficult but ultimately right thing in issuing a mea culpa:

I think we (allegedly informed and thoughtful conservative bloggers) should have done better. There were plenty of warning signs and contrary voices. I didn’t want to listen to them.

Stephen takes an action that is beyond the capabilities of many, including the current President: admitting an error publicly and learning from the mistake.

Kudos to the Commissar, and here is to hoping that all bloggers, left-leaning along with the right-leaning, learn from his example.

At The Politburo Diktat there is a back of the envelope estimate of troop levels that might be needed in Iraq to achieve what we have been told is the mission there, along with a brief comment on mission-creep.

What is just as interesting as the analysis is the origin of the piece; the author is a right-leaning blogger who started the Raging RINOs (Republicans and Independents Not Overdosed on the party kool-aid) although he has passed administration of that group on to another.

In an overheated partisan atmosphere such as we have now, considering the source of arguments is more important than ever. This case is not one where the author is trying to discredit the party in power for political purposes, and therefore should be regarded as more credible than what has become typical in blogworld.

Sigh…

Where to start?

Two years ago, before the last election, I believed that many bloggers who I read were reasonable despite their differing political views.

Since then, however, despite their own protestations, the Partisan Derangement Syndrome (or PDS, formerly known as the Bush Derangement Syndrome among those who are not able to recognize the universal nature of this malady) has taken hold, and unreasoning support of “their own side” in the face of all evidence to the contrary still takes hold. Perhaps not all the time, but often enough where the rationality and clear vision of those involved comes to question.

I will present two examples, and if those involved choose to take offense, I offer my apologies, but I am merely trying to illustrate a point. If you do not want your opinions discussed publicly, then do not post them on weblogs.

The first example is one of conversion, the Commissar of The Poliburo Diktat, who is now asking the same questions I have been asking for the past three years, but only after evidence beyond even an unreasonable doubt of the incompetence of those he formerly supported:

An agonizing gotcha moment

The other day, I posted a long piece questioning the widely-blogged report of sharply decreasing Iraqi casualties in August. When I saw a new, corrective report today, being human, I felt quite vindicated. While there was a slight drop-off in August, the 2/3 decrease was just was not credible. It never happened. But does this put me in the position of rooting for more deaths of Iraqi civilians? I certainly hope not. Do I want to say smugly, Ha! Eat sh1t, Powerline boys! … um .. only for a moment.

But that is one of the challenges of the debate that this country is having about the Iraq war. The administration (perhaps understandably) puts out a relentlessly positive, upbeat party line. Conservative bloggers (also understandably) jump on any favorable fragment of news and give it great prominence. Political opponents adopt the same tactics, with bad news.

Simply trying to bring facts and reality into that atmosphere is difficult. And when the news from Iraq is mostly bad, one ends up sounding like a moonbat. *sigh*

Well, gee, Commissar, it would have been nice to have you in the reality-based community (not to be confused with the Democrats) back BEFORE the current set of idiots were elected or re-elected back in 2004.

Somehow, even in his repentence of following the party-line, and despite facing overwhelming evidence to the contrary, acknowledging reality is “sounding like a moonbat.”

It is a sad archetype when pursuing rationality is perceived as completely irrational by the wing currently in power…

Then there is the sniping from one of whom I expected a bit more of a balanced view. In one of his “H&I Fires” posts, John Donovan of Castle Arhgghhh!!! writes:

Oh, my. I may be getting free books, but I’m not getting free review copies of TV stuff. But this is delicious: Senate Dems are threatening ABC’s broadcast license over the 9/11 mini-series. Which indicates *just* how much they fear it. Wow. Talk about “Soviet-style chills” oh, wait, that’s the NYT when Rethuglicans are talking trash about television… One wonders what the Grey Lady’s tortured thoughts will be this time ’round.

Update: While we haven’t heard from the NYT Editorial Board, we have heard from their critic who saw the show.

NEW YORK The film-makers and network responsible for the upcoming miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” which is now under assault for its alleged conservative bias, received critical support from a perhaps unexpected quarter on Friday — The New York Times.

The paper’s TV critic, Alessandra Stanley, declares the film “fictionalized” but still evenhanded.

Others cited in the same Editor and Publisher article didn’t necessarily agree…

Chicago Sun-Times TV critic Doug Elfman calls the movie a total “bore” and “amateurish.” John Podhoretz, conservative columnist for the New York Post, labels it a “stiff” and attacks the film’s depiction of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger. USA Today’s Robert Bianco writes that the movie “has enough trouble just following history. Rewriting history is an ambition it should have left at the door.”

Hey, fair and balanced, that’s us!

Hey, John, this isn’t your original comment of “What are they afraid of?” in reference to the Democrats, and that particular snark was unworthy of you despite the apparent subsequent edits, for they are not much better.

I am forced to wonder, is the bias evident in only showing preview copies to conservative commentators and right-wing polititicians bothering your conscience, or did your sense of “fair and balanced” get reawakened by the protests from conservatives regarding the “docudrama” about President Ronald Reagan that was to be shown around a decade ago, which orgininally showed him having total indifference to the effects of the AIDS epidemic on the homosexual community but was alterered in the face of partisan protests?

Or are you fully supportive of a film presenting distortions and outright fictionalized scenes as history? One must wonder…

Or was the current imbroglio too close to the Dan Rather standard of “fabricated but balanced” for you?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Perhaps, John, you might want to read a few other posts on the matter, starting with what Joe Gandelman had to say, especially when it comes to the partisan nature of the pre-release DVDs issued.

Am I angry?

Yes.

I am sick of the unthinking, non-rational nature of what we call political “discourse” in the nation today.

Excuse the fuck out of me for asking for reasons and full discussions of options when it comes to sending Americans (including our soldiers) into harm’s way.

In my blog reading today, I discover that one of the bloggers that has fans among some of my regular reads was linked to by a big-time blogger, but in a negative light, being called a “moonbat” by someone whom one would think would be sensitive to idiotic name-calling. Unfortunately, the small-minded followers of this big-time blogger chose to leave hate filled comments up to and including death threats on the post that dared challenge some conventional wisdom held dear by the big-time blogger.

In other words, some of the right-leaning bloggers I read are discovering that the wing-nuts on their fringe are just as hateful as the “moonbats” they like to point out are so intolerant, offensive, and just plain mean.

It appears to be a rude shock to some…

Anyone who thinks that “their side” is immune from the hate is engaging in self-delusion, so perhaps it would be more productive to spend time explaining why their point of view is right instead of pointing fingers and proclaiming how evil the extremists of the “other side” are, because those in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones.

Technorati Tags: blogging, blogs, right wing, right wing blogs, right wing weblogs, right-wing blogs, right-wing weblogs, weblogs

…of how the right-wing has fellow-travelers just as idiotic as the left-wing loonies.

Godwin’s Law expressed in an image instead of text (screenshot posted in case the blogger actually finds some shred of rationality and sense and removes this idiocy from the site):

So, now that BOTH sides have illustrated beyond all doubt that they contain idiotic lunatics along with people of good faith, instead of focusing on pointing out the morons on the “other side” why don’t we explain why our beliefs are worthy?

I have changed my mind on occasion when the rationale behind a political position is explained clearly. Just like everyone else, I am not correct 100% of the time, and I am willing to recognize that indisputable fact.

Unfortunately, people prefer to throw rocks instead of doing the hard work of justifying their beliefs to those who don’t “think right”…

Technorati Tags: amber and cruelty, right wing blogs, right wing weblogs, right-wing blogs, right-wing weblogs

John Cole at Balloon Juice posted a link to a satire in the Toronto Star referring to a modest proposal on resolving the CIA leak investigation despite obstruction of the investigation through the use of torture on Scooter Libby (if you have never read the original “A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public” by Jonathan Swift, and apparently more than a few commenting to Cole’s post have not, I highly recommend it).

One of Cole’s regular readers was not amused:

Why is John Cole selling out to the left?

I’m a long-time reader. Balloon Juice used to sit in the “Essential Blogs� category in my blog links. I created a new category today: On Probation, to which I’ve relocated Balloon Juice.

You’ll be hearing from me on my relatively new blog in response to all your “Now be nice to those murdering terrorists, and be sure to read then their Miranda rights� postings.

Cole responded later in the comments:

Oh Good Christ Almighty.

If I thought we were 100% sure we were torturing only people who had or who were going to attack the United States, I would probably willingly join in on the torture. Hell, I might even come up with a few new torture methods beyond anything yet described.

For instance, I might tie the terrorist to a seat and make him read every comment posted here on this website.

But since we don’t know who they are or what they are, I would like to note a couple things:

1.) Torture is not as effective as other methods of extracting information.

2.) Many of the people we are hearing should be subjected to torture have turned out to be innocent.

3.) The vast majority of the people we have captured to date are low levels who have no information worth giving.

4.) Allowing for a policy of torture directly increases the chances that our soldiers and agents will be tortured.

5.) Torture is frowned upon by the vast majority of our allies.

6.) Apparently we already have tortured a number of people, to no real advantage.

7.) The public of the United States (you know, the folks that determine the government) seems to be largely opposed to torture.

Putting aside all those reasons, and I am sure a number I have missed, let me just point out one other reason we shouldn’t torture.

IT’S FUCKING WRONG.

Regular readers here already are aware that I agree with Cole on this particular topic. What is interesting is the response of some to any statement that torture is morally wrong. Somehow, being against the use of torture by our government is immediately associated with “selling out to the left” and is calling for “mollycoddling” of those captured. See the above points made by Cole for how truly simple-minded that reaction truly is.

John Cole is right, torture is fucking wrong, and I am forced to question the humanity of those who are calling for it to be institutionalized within our government, which it will be if any law we pass has “exceptions” allowing it, regardless of the limitations imposed.

Technorati Tags: weblogs, right-wing weblogs, right wing weblogs, right-wing, right wing, torture, anti-torture amendment, anti-torture law, commentary

Proving that the radical right-wing is seeing only what they want to see, here is a blog that refers to my post “Fear and hate” as going “on and on about what the riots are and are not about—wholly irrelevant points, since the rioters chose of their own free will to behave in a subhuman, criminal manner, and therefore, they and only they are responsible for their own behavior.”

Nowhere did I try to excuse the behavior of the hooligans, yet somehow they try to link what I am saying to what the rioters are choosing and implying I am saying the perpetrators are not responsible.

Seeking explanations is NOT making excuses.

If I seek out why a building collapses, am I trying to say that the architect and builder are not responsible? No, I am trying to find out the reason so I can make sure it does not happen again.

Yet, somehow, the author at RightWingNation appears to think searching for fundamental causes is making excuses.

Was I name-calling the radical right-wing?

The post I quote from gives further evidence that the radical right-wing is seeking out connections that do not exist so they can associate the words “subhuman” and “criminal” with Islam.

Perhaps I should have tried some name-calling.

Take a moment to think, people, and stop jerking your knees.

I repeat my point, if we link the violence to Islam when it is not connected, we will take yet another step on the path to being in a true holy war.

Unfortuately, the radical right-wing does indeed need to “put the kool-aid down and back away” because the lenses they use to view the world are obscuring too much.

For another view from the center on the right-wing reaction to the violence in France, The Radical Centrist has some thoughts worth reading:

Restrain your schadenfreude!

While at Incite, there is recognition that Islam is not the driving force behind the riots now, but the underlying disaffection may well be levered using radical Islam as a tool to deliberately create instability in the future. The final paragraph perfectly describes the key issues now and for the future.

The Dividends of Disorder

This is why we must recognize and address the true causes underlying the violence, because if we react as if it is another case somehow proving “Islam is evil” we will take action that will be to our detriment.

We are in a war against a group that uses radical Islam as a tool, but as has been said by many, including President George W. Bush, we are not in a war against Islam. It is not a holy war, and it will not be unless we make it one through ill-thought-out actions.

First, a brief note is needed.

A long-time reader left in the comments to my post “Fear and hate” a remark that I had “become such a name caller,” which is interesting because nowhere in the post do I call names. I point out that right-wing weblogs are seeking out reasons to connect the riots in France to Islam, and relate these tendencies to similar, simple-minded linkages, correlations that did not prove causality, that existed in the United States 35 years ago, making the point that just as the violence of that time was connected to things other than the color of the skin of those participating in the unrest, the violence now is not rooted fundamentally in Islam.

Somehow, this is “name calling” to a blogger who refers to liberals and the left-wing without discrimination as “moonbats.”

Read my post, and decide for yourself regarding if I call names or if instead I point out bad behavior on the part of many on the right-wing (noting that nowhere do I paint ALL right-wingers with this brush but instead refer to extremists seeing what they want to see).

Draw your own conclusions, but please take off your partisan glasses first.

Unless, of course, you insist that everyone must think exactly as you do, as some seem to believe despite their protests otherwise.

As I have written often before, moderation and reason is NOT non-partisan, and it is NOT a viewpoint lacking strong, deeply-held beliefs. It is instead an acknowledgement that no one is correct ALL the time, and a willingness to listen to others and their views and a considered weighing of those opinions. I have changed my views on some issues because of the discussions I have had and things I have read.

All too often, I see those who defend their views far beyond the point of rationality even when the falsity is more than obvious to even their fellow-travelers.

For those who continue to insist upon correlation proving causality, when it does not, but are indeed willing to consider viewpoints other than their own, ponder this correlation discovered inside France before the onset of violence:

And it is not easy for even ambitious young people to break out if they come from a district with a bad reputation, as Jean-Francois Amadieu, a university professor who founded the “Discrimination Observatory” discovered in experiments over the past year.

He sent out fictitious applications for sales jobs, allegedly coming from six different sorts of applicant, ranging from a white male to a woman of North African origins, all with the same résumé.

Applicants writing from addresses known to be in “difficult” areas received half as many invitations to an interview as those from less notorious districts. The “North African” male candidate received five times fewer invitations than his white counterpart, says Prof. Amadieu.

At the same time, complains Michèle Lereste, who runs the “Green Light” social-work agency in Villetaneuse, just North of Paris, where the projects are almost entirely inhabited by immigrant-descended families, government funding cuts have closed a number of job-training institutes, “and we are finding it harder and harder to get employers to take apprentices from our district.”

The violence has spread to the town in which I live. I doubtless have met and spoken with some of those now rioting. You see, I spend time in the “ethnic neighborhoods” looking for photos to take.

The origins of the current violence in France are complex, and simplistic linking of the riots to Islamist incitement is not only betraying a partisan agenda that uses the same “logic” as racism, but ultimately is damaging because it creates a distraction from the larger struggle the United States is engaged upon. This wider conflict is not against Islam, but rather against a radical philosophy that uses Islam as a tool to manipulate, just as politicians in the United States use scare and smear tactics as tools to gain votes.

Is this apparently cynical attitude towards US politicians because I hate the US, democracy, and freedom?

No.

It is because I love my country and the ideals upon which it was founded. Ideals I feel many have lost sight of on BOTH the left AND the right, despite how often they say they are fighting for them.

Technorati Tags: blogging, blogs, commentary, France, right wing blogs, right wing weblogs, right-wing blogs, right-wing weblogs, riots in France, weblogs

…jokers to the right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you…

I have already written of my disgust at the glee expressed by the left-wing, especially on weblogs, in the anticipation of any indictments that might result from the Fitzgerald investigation.

I have equal loathing for the apologists and minimalists on the right-wing, especially on weblogs, that I have heard and read in the wake of the indictments delivered.

Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear that his investigation and that of the grand jury was actively impeded by Lewis Libby.

So, we are confronted with yet another Rorschach test of political views, because it is far easier to react than it is to think, it is far easier to gloat than it is to mourn the true message of the issues revealed, it is far easier to minimize the offense than to stand up and accept responsibility.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you…

After seeing the reactions from both sides, I am at a loss for words to express my repugnance for this nauseating behavior.

Technorati Tags: commentary, conservative politics, conservatives, liberal politics, liberals, right wing, right wing blogs, right wing politics, right wing weblogs, right-wing, right-wing blogs, right-wing politics, right-wing weblogs, weblogs

I am still working on a post that definitively defines the “Amber and Cruelty” theme that I am trying to develop that encompasses all of the aspects, from both the right-wing AND left-wing extremists.

Unfortunately for my efforts, perhaps because I read more right-wing leaning material than that originating from the left-wing, I continually encounter things that I cannot refrain from commenting upon immediately, instead of incorporating them into the long, balanced dissertation that I doubt many, if any, will read in its ultimate entirety.

In this case, the unintentional irony embedded within one weblog and one statement by a school board member both illustrate my meanings in the phrase “Amber and Cruelty” as used here.

The first, from a post on Don Surber’s eponymous weblog, which mainly is composed of a column he wrote for the Daily Mail in recognition of the contribution to humanity by Rosa Parks:

On May 18, 1896, the court handed down Plessy v. Ferguson, which said states could have colored sections under the nonsensical doctrine of “separate but equal.” It was constitutional alchemy.

Only Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented. He was from Kentucky, and he had owned slaves. But he knew that separate meant second-class, not equal.

“But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens,” Justice Harlan wrote in his dissent.

“There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.”

It would be another 58 years before the humblest would indeed become the peer of the most powerful, and in that very court.

I have gone back into the archives at Surber’s blog to see if I can extract any specific reasons he supported the nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court beyond his statement of “I trust President Bush,” but I have not found anything concrete yet since he doesn’t seem to have categories on his blog (Mr. Surber, if you disagree with my assumptions that follow, please let me know and I will correct the post). Assuming that Surber’s “trust” in the President is that he would nominate someone “in the mold of Thomas and Scalia,” it is safe to say that he is supporting an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution.

The problem here is that if we do indeed take the “frozen in amber” interpretation advocated by the “originalists” such as Scalia (and, nominally at least, those who support overturning Roe v. Wade and a number of other ostensibly liberal Supreme Court decisions that offend their so-called conservative sensibilities), then the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was correct. The Consitution as originally written and originally intended by the founders did indeed recognize race when they wrote into it the “three-fifths clause” regarding “other persons,” thereby officially recognizing that slaves were worth less than regular people.

Who were the slaves?

It was universally recognized at the time of writing (which is what the originalists insist upon) that slaves were “negros.”

Therefore, despite what Justice Harlan wrote, there was indeed in the Constitution, within the minds of the Founders, a color-aware caste system put in place, that knew and tolerated classes among citizens.

Although the thirteenth amendment outlawed slavery, it did not explicitly change the “original intentions” of the founders regarding “other persons” according to the frozen in amber interpretation of the “originalists.”

Yet…

Surber writes as if the dissent of Justice Harlan is the correct interpretation.

According to a strict reading of the “originalist” creed, it is