And on and on, in the same vein, and with no evident concern for accuracy (although this Fisk icon seems to have done away with any need for accuracy, so I see no reason for a front-line reporter such as Mr. Clawson not to follow suit. Oddly, for most Americans, "Fisk" is only known as a catcher for the Red Sox in the 70s and 80s, but he is a last-namer, whereas Krauthammer, who has written for an opinion-leader in the U.S. for at least a couple of decades, is "Charles." Are Clawson and he relatives? Did he go to Clawson's wedding? This is curious usage for one who delves so deeply into slanted uses of language...)

So I take it Nasrallah's politically shrewd, has garnered industrial-strength support, and held the IDF at bay, unlike predecessors engaged in military conflict with Israel, but Mr. Clawson finds none of these things admirable.

In other words, Hezbollah has succeeded, Israel has failed, but Mr. Clawson does not in any way admire pragmatic success, because the fact that the conflict happened is "stupid."

Once again, it's one or the other.

Mr. Clawson is once again walking like a duck, quacking like a duck, and retreating, when convenient, to the explanation that in reality, he is a dove.

Virtually the moment the cease-fire was signed, we were subjected to this dissection of the conflict on all sides, to determine "who won". This does not surprise me.

What surprises me is the evident double-standard:

Israel's actions (for example, "last minute" bombs meant to wipe out Hezbollah weaponry) have a moral component.

Hezbollah's actions (for example, "last minute" volleys of Katyushas meant to take civilian lives) have no moral component, but should be looked at as signs of military efficacy.

Far be it from me to call any poster on these boards a hypocrite. They are all, to coin a phrase, honorable men. However, the posts pouring from the keyboards of these honorable men seem to rely on hypocritical and intellectually dishonest arguments. Were they not penned by honorable men, I would consider them disgusting.

But once again, I am still getting my head around the notion that all of this is inherently subjective, and that truth does not exist. Not in a photograph. Not in a body count. Not in an analysis. Not in a village in Lebanon, not in a bus stop in Tel Aviv, not in a train repair facility in Haifa.

Will it matter in Boston harbor? Did it matter in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania? Or were those yet more media images to be spun and manipulated?

Just curious as to the limits of this particular form of subjectivism. I do see it as limited in its power to consider a world composed of more than the self and the self's ideological and ego-fulfillment needs.

Dan

The saddest part of this very long thread is I don't think a single mind was changed. It must be genetic.

On that, Dick, we are in complete agreement.


(edited to make clear exactly which part of Dick's statement I agree with)

[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 05, 2006).]

Dan,

The sheer number of pejoratives you manage to pack into a single post is a marvel. One cannot help but stop and stare in wonder and horror, rather like the awful fascination of watching a toilet back up.

That said, it should be pointed out that there is a difference between declaring someone victorious and arguing that one side or another has done a better job of making lemonade out of the bad situation. Similarly, making fun of someone declaring victory does not mean that you think the other side was victorious.

So Krautie sang Israel's praises. What are the odds on any given Tuesday that he'd do that?

Out of all the things which have been said on this thread....and considering there were 390 posts here which preceeded these two remarks, these two are, without a doubt, the most blatantly offensive and the most overtly and directed racist remarks I've seen made.

I'd be even more offended if I wasn't laughing at the fact that both Dick and Mark may not even realize that, as frequent contributors to the thread themselves, they've poked as much ignorant innuendo at their own genetic material as they have at anyone else's.

Besides that, it's an assumption based on nothing they "know" and based instead on what they "think" about the genetic material of anyone who disagrees with them.

In fact, Mark-who-hails-from-Ireland, if you're interested - my "genetics" are much closer to your "genetics" than they are to, oh say, Dan's "genetics." If your statement here were to be capable of holding any water at all - and if genetics alone were responsible for what people think and believe - I should be in agreement with you rather than with him.

And that ain't happenin' here.

Lo
(red-haired, freckle-faced Catholic-born and raised woman of Irish/Swiss extraction)

Whoa, Lo! that was an error! I meant to single out the FIRST part of Dick's statement; I thought I had quoted it but didn't check properly (I've now amended the post). The second part of Dick's statement is something I wouldn't agree with (actually I wouldn't take it seriously enough to bother disagreeing with). But, since it applies to EVERYONE on the thread, including himself, how can it be a racist comment, let alone the "most racist" remark on the thread!?

Lo, I could understand puzzlement on your part; if you'd simply questioned my response, took me up on it, I'd have no problem. But you've read enough of my posts to know I would make a rather unlikely racist, closet or otherwise. I've set this down in black and white more than once (for example that both Israeli AND Labanese casualties are EQUALLY tragic, remember? Anyway, once more, let me make plain my thoughts. I believe..no, I KNOW that anyone who actually buys the genetic racist argument (as the Nazis did) is abysmally ignorant, so ignorant that they are really on a different planet, one without real people (or real anything) on it. They are scum. Actually, Primo Levi, one of my favourite writers, puts it far better than I ever could:

'SHEMA

You who live secure
In your warm houses
Who return at evening to find
Hot food and friendly faces:

Consider whether this is a man,
Who labours in the mud
Who knows no peace
Who fights for a crust of bread
Who dies at a yes or a no.
Consider whether this is a woman,
Without hair or name
With no more strength to remember
Eyes empty and womb cold
As a frog in winter.

Consider that this has been:
I commend these words to you.
Engrave them on your hearts
When you are in your house, when you walk on your way,
When you go to bed, when you rise.
Repeat them to your children.
Or may your house crumble,
Disease render you powerless,
Your offspring avert their faces from you.'


Mark those last three lines, which I agree with ABSOLUTELY! That's what I feel about racism of ANY creed, Irish, German, American Israeli, Labanese, fucking Eskimo... Plain enough?

As I said, that last post of mine was incomplete (about to be corrected). However, from the way you've reacted, your response seems to me way over the top. It's as if you were already suspecting me of racism, and, when this was confirmed (in your mind), sprang for the kill: LOOK GUYS ANOTHER RACIST! SEE? I ALWAYS KNEW IT! This makes me wonder if you secretly suspect everyone who disagrees with your politics of racism. Or was it just me (and Dick)?



[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 05, 2006).]

No...just anyone who says or implies that the workings of a mind are genetically pre-determined.

Lo

I'm not convinced Lo (not that you'd care).

And I find it curious that you claimed to be offended at all; your response seemed more gleeful than offended to me, the delight of a child thinking she's got hold of a nice big stick to beat one of her opponents with (I would think that you and Dick have more in common, politically, than he and I.

Dick's genetics schtick seems silly to me, but I'm still not sure how that last comment could be racist (and therefore offensive) if it he meant it to apply to ALL posters on the thread, as he seemed to.

Please explain that one to me.

Lo

The use of the word "Genetic" was meant that everyone's POV seems cast in stone. I threw it in for Mark to throw his body on. My mother was Swedish, my father was Welsh and German. The original family name was Kohlmorgan. My grandfather died of accute alohol poisoning. My mother and father were both alcoholics. My daughter and brother are a practicing alcoholics. I got my degree from Johnny Walker university, as well. Did we do this all on free will?

While you may think genetics plays no part in what you do with your life or I do with mine--80 percent of the world believes in God--do you all think they arrived at this via "Free will"?

Based on previous posts I assume you work in the medical profession--aren't there a series of questions you need to ask intaking a patient that have a genetic component?

If I were a physician and Dan and a signficent other who was also Jewish and I was politically correct and didn't want to ask if he was a "jew" and as a consequence I didn't test for Tay Sach's Disease I would be guilty of malpractice.

How can we solve problems if we are not allowed to use constants but only variables that can be changed to suit the agenda of some group that seeks finacial advantage for themselves?

Dick



[This message has been edited by Dick Morgan (edited September 05, 2006).]

50/50, given the two articles in question.

I am not surprised at your non-response, or your distaste for any argument involving the facts of the matter. I notice that "Charles" is now "Krautie." From what I can tell, belittlement on the basis of which name to use (or invent) is the most unassailable of the Israel-basher's tactics hereabouts.

The rest of the arguments, as they pertain to the "victory party," are simply wrong, judged by their internal logic. (you'll want to look into the content of my post, for specific instances of hypocrisy.) And that is why you cannot answer my post on its merits.

YOU HAVE TO CAPITALIZE IT!!!! GOTCHA!

I kid because I love.

Dan