Home > Uncategorized > Weekend reading…

Weekend reading…

Post on February 8, 2008 by 5 Comments »

 After you get home from the HK on J march and rally this Saturday, you may want to spend some time checking out these entertaining and/or informative blog posts from the week gone by. Note: you'll have to read to the bottom to get the image reference at right.

Mark Binker at Capital Beat has a couple of laugh (or at least chuckle) out loud pieces.

First there's this post about Howard Coble's enormously influential and well-timed endorsement of Mitt Romney. It occurred about 72 hours before the Mittster called it quits.

Then there's this one about the junior Senator from North Carolina's exalted new position as "Co-Chair of the Senate Boating Caucus."

Anglico at BlueNC had a typically prolific week. Highlights included a couple of attacks on the Pope empire and a well-aimed barb at Bob Orr for his debate comments about "market solutions" to the health care mess.

Under the Dome broke a couple of stories (at least it was the first place I saw them) including Bob Orr's endorsement of John McCain (wow, that was courageous on Bob's part), Jack Hawke's fade off into the sunset at Civitas, and Pat McCrory's attempt to be a "green" candidate.

Public Policy Polling has their latest numbers on various Democratic primaries. Perhaps the most interesting #: Obama 42%, Clinton 40%.

And lastly, for folks with strong stomachs there's the Civitas and Locke blogs.

Go here to read Max Borders' comparison (we're not making this up) of water boarding (what he terms "unpleasant interrogation") to the times his "older step brother sat on top of my head with a pillow." This may explain some things.  

Click here to read defenses of payday lending, attacks on efforts to control tuition increases and, yikes!!, a very old film of Ronald Reagan delivering what Mitch Kokai calls "the speech." It doesn't appear to be the one (I guess it was 20 years too early) in which Reagan calls for amensty for undocumented immigrants.  

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments (Closed):5

  1. anglico
    February 10, 2008 at 9:52 am

    Poor Max.

    First he flushes his blogging career by declaring that “boiling people alive” wouldn’t be immoral if it served the interests of the United States . . . and now he’s on record that drowning them would be just fine too?

    War is not for the squeamish. Dealing with terrorists surely isn’t. And when we’re functioning in the extra-Constititutional (sic) domain of terrorists and foreign combatants, isn’t it worth making their situation unpleasant if the goal is to extract information that will save lives of Americans or innocents?

    What on earth does this guy know about war or dealing with terrorists? Maybe he should take his metro-sexual self down to the nearest recruiting office and put his a__ on the line for real.

  2. Rob Schofield
    February 10, 2008 at 9:30 pm

    I honestly don’t know to make of these people. Should we laugh or cry at the notion of self-proclaimed “libertarians” who celebrate (or, at least, casually dismiss) the torture of human beings? Should we dismiss such people as belonging to a small and irrelevant group of know-nothings or treat them as a genuine threat that must be confronted and derided at every opportunity? For now, I guess we’ll stick with the latter approach and hope we’re overreacting.

  3. anglico
    February 11, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    Confront and deride.

    The old strategy of sitting back and looking for compromise and reason has proven dangerous. They are extremists in nearly every sense of the word and we cannot simply wring our hands and hope their damage will be minimal. Who would have thought that right-wing politicians would over-ride the wishes of most military professionals who are adamantly opposed to water torture?

    The grand irony, of course, is that so many of them call foul now that we’re call their bullshit. “Mean old angry liberals” is their taunt. Why can we all just be friends and have some constructive dialog, they ask.

    Why? Because for us to disarm after they’ve dragged the moral center so far to the right would be the equivalent of selling low to lock in your losses.

    Confront and deride is the appropriate response to such inhumanity. And if that doesn’t work, shame and ridicule.

  4. sturner
    February 11, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    I agree with anglico. Confront, deride, shame, ridicule…whatever it takes. And don’t forget snark…they really don’t like that. Mostly, though, we need to win some elections with truly progressive candidates. Debate is useless with these folks, and compromise is worse.

  5. sturner
    February 12, 2008 at 6:11 am

    Speaking of torture, I just reread August ’07 The New Yorker article “The Black Sites:”
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer

    This article covers extensively the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (K.S.M.), the Al Qaeda leader and archtect of the 9/11 attacks. K.S.M. also alleges that he killed Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (which the Pearl family and many others close to the case find doubtful).

    The money quote is in the final paragraph. Asra Nomani, a former Journal reporter and longtime friend of Pearl’s, and where Marianne and Daniel Pearl were staying at the time of his murder, says:

    “I’m not interested in unfair justice, even for bad people. Danny was such a person of conscience. I don’t think he would have wanted all of this dirty business. I don’t think he would have wanted someone being tortured. He would have been repulsed. This is the kind of story that Danny would have investigated. He really believed in American principles.”