This refers to yesterday's post here.
I have this to say to some of you who took my concern addressed toward Jesse as an issue of personalities, rather than as one about basic ideas upon which survival of what we are as Americans are founded upon.
I. I beseeched Mr. Griffin to address the president's ongoing war crimes. He has not. Nor did any of his defenders in the comments. Let me allow Justice Thomas Jackson give you a word of advice, my friends. This is a nugget from his famous Nuremberg summation:
The society of nations has emerged from the primitive "hue and cry," the law of "catch and kill." It seeks to apply sanctions to enforce international law, but to guide their application by evidence, law, and reason instead of outcry. The defendants denounce the law under which their accounting is asked. Their dislike for the law which condemns them is not original. It has been remarked before that: "No thief e'er felt the halter draw with good opinion of the law."It is on you, not me, for turning a purposefully blind eye away from this president's war crimes.
II. I beseeched Mr. Griffin to speak out against the president's support of the Koch Brothers' owned Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. None of Jesse's supporters who responded touched this with a ten-foot pole.
Again, this is not about personalities. I wouldn't have addressed this in the way I did unless I had some faith that Jesse will come around on this key issue.
We are quickly killing the planet. Far more quickly than I feel most of Jesse's devotees understand. At the rate our global CO2 emissions are exceeding recent predictions, the oceans will start going very dead in the 2020s.
What we do know about what this means for global climate health is profound. Simply put, the earth will rapidly cease to be able to support anywhere near the billions of people who are already here.
The single person who can do the most about that is the president of the United States. Addressing this is far, far more important than whether or not we have an Obama in DC to put the next Elena Kagan on the U.S. Supreme Court.
I understand that Obama is a better occupant of our highest elected office than McCain would have been. The clowns the GOP are putting out there are pathetic at best. Unless the electronic voting machines, polling processes and post-Citizens United campaign funding systems are so far out of whack that my dog could get elected, we've got Obama until 2016. So don't criticize my concerns about pivotal issues as being helpful to the GOP.
hat tip to Glenn Greenwald
17 comments:
You seem to have a hard on for Gryph. What's the deal? Why do you care what he posts? You have your own blog - he has his. Your obsession with Gryph seems strange.
Phil- I know that you see yourself as a Progressive, but I would suggest that your approach more closely approximates the Fundamentalist model.
You see the TRUTH and all others are sinners to be criticized and condemned..... that is of course until you see another TRUTH and then, oh dear, a new group of sinners.
Lenin himself had a wonderful name for your type of politics-- he called it an '"infantile disorder."
I do have to thank you though. I thought that the comments generated by your attack on IM were some of the most thoughtful anywhere. So I guess you have moved us forward, despite yourself!!
Anon@5:45 PM "Your obsession with Gryph seems strange." Agreed. Something is going here besides Phil M's "Obama war crimes" fixation. Is Gryphen an easy target? Is he just a convenient scapegoat for a puerile radical who needs to dump his frustrations on somebody because "Daddy" (Big Bad Obama) isn't paying enough attention to the really good kids (the true progressives)?
conscious at last,
So you're writing that the facts that concern me are not facts, but my version of some kinky "TRUTH," as you put it?
Where are the facts I've cited or linked to false?
Who have I condemned?
Why is intervention against addicts in this case considered so consistently as something that can be compared to a projection based upon myth and superstition, like your use of the term "sinners"?
Phil, you have totally, completely, and absolutely missed the point of the people who criticized you. That often happens with sanctimonious people.
Why is intervention against addicts in this case considered so consistently as something that can be compared to a projection based upon myth and superstition, like your use of the term "sinners"?
November 7, 2011 6:26 PM
"Addicts"...."intervention"...Phil WTF are you talking about? Is Jesse an addict who needs an intervention? Do you see how insane you sound? Get some help.
Phil I totally agree with you about Obama and yes you are a progressive even if others don't understand that. I do totally disagree with Gryphen about his love of Obama, but I continue to love his blog. I support his right to say whatever he wants even if I think he is wrong. One of the things I love about him is his stubborn way of doing what he thinks is right when others are telling him to stop. There are some other stubborn people like you and me around Alaska as well.
"I understand that Obama is a better occupant of our highest elected office than McCain would have been. The clowns the GOP are putting out there are pathetic at best. Unless the electronic voting machines, polling processes and post-Citizens United campaign funding systems are so far out of whack that my dog could get elected, we've got Obama until 2016."
What you are saying is more intellectually honest than total suck-up-itude from sounding like President Obama is walking on water. He's done a number of things that have earned criticism. I do grit my teeth on some of what comes off on koolaid drinking about Pres O, but he has said on occasion that he has disagreed with some of Pres O's actions, so I do give Jesse some credit.
He has blocked 3 comments on my thoughts on Mercede and Tripp and Levi, so I wonder what's up with that, but it's his blog. I'm way more disappointed by Obama than Jesse, though. I'm perplexed by some of the comments on YOUR posts on this topic, however. Are people really being willfully blind?
nswfm
IM is more like TMZ; PA more resembles Firedoglake or DailyKos. The former takes a more "entertainment-based" view of current events, while the latter operates in what I consider a more sober and serious manner.
Regarding how they each handle the POTUS and his record, here's what I see:
It's enough for some to view the POTUS only at the surface level; he's not a Republican so he ROCKS! IM treats Obama like a rock star.
That's enough for some, but not enough for me, and obviously Phil wishes that more people would more carefully peruse the record and actions of our POTUS rather than just be pleased that he's NOT John McCain. Phil digs deep and shows us that Obama and many other politician's records and actions are disturbing and questionable and bear consideration and perhaps should be motivation for Americans to push for a change in the status quo.
That being said, these are two very different blogs with very different approaches and I'm rather surprised at the crossover in readership.
Neither the authors nor the blogs can be compared. Phil is a long time student of politics, both national and local.
Jesse has neither the political knowledge nor the experience as an activist that Phil has. I don't mean to say that as a bad thing, but it is truth. IM has a large readership thanks to the Palin birth drama and I understand that Phil would like for that readership to obtain a more "fair and balanced" view of our President and his actions, but IM is not that blog.
I go to PA when I need the "full and in-depth" treatment. I go to IM when I want to read about the Palin train wreck.
IM does a helluva job covering the Palin Train Wreck on a tabloid level, and PA does a helluva job with local, national and global politics .
I daresay that the cross readership would not be as large if these two blogs were not cross linked to each other on their perspective blog rolls.
LakeLucilleLoon
Thanks, LLL.
I appreciate your perspective. I'm old enough to be Jesse's father, and have been ripped off by politicians a generation longer than he has.
Some of the commenters here and at the previous post probably aren't aware of how much I've supported Jesse on many, many issues, and how I've come to his defense (and Devon's). More than once. Jesse and I also come to each others' support on a personal level, and will continue to do that.
Jesse just printed a comment of mine at his 'pull the $$$' post.
Ugh, I bit again and clicked from Jesse's page to this site, increasing your traffic, which is what you were looking for by using his name in the first place. Silly me. If you support each other on a personal level...then go have this conversation in a coffee shop and stop involving the rest of us.
anon @ 5:09,
This was not an exercise in increasing blog traffic.
It turned out to be an exercise in showing how few people who came over here from IM truly care about whether or not they are supporting a war criminal - Obama - and how very few who came over here from there seem to realize how important climate change issues are rapidly becoming.
On some levels, the result is surprising. On others, it has not been.
Alright, now the posts are done. Just give it up, leave it alone. I like blogs that are different, so cover what you want, condemn what you want, and let others do the same. Most of us want some variety on the theme. I tolerate some of your over-the-top coverage of Israel and the Middle East, but like most of the rest. Leave IM to itself.
LLL..Totally agree about Jesse;s blog being like TMZ. Whenever he posts anything serious he hardly gets any comments, he's in it for the Palin Train Wreak clicks. Do not mention Mercede or Sherry or your comment will not show up but he lets the Fairy Tale Trolls thur because they bring in the clicks.
Phil keep up the good work you do, we need to be serious sometimes and not just follow tabloid type trash.
Phil
Be practical and think of the greater good and just let a few issues slide. Obama needs to toss the moderates a few bones, in order to maintain his his overall influence.
After next November Obama will be free to be you best buddy.
"We are quickly killing the planet. Far more quickly than I feel most of Jesse's devotees understand. At the rate our global CO2 emissions are exceeding recent predictions, the oceans will start going very dead in the 2020s."
not dealing with climate change, for any reason one might come up with will later be seen by a plurality as a crime against humanity. it will eclipse all other issues. we had a chance to start reversing course in the '90s and early '00s and we blew it!
Thanks, Phil, for clearing all that up, and using recycled pixels while doing so, to help save the planet.
It's not the meat of the issue I took offense with then nor now. Your post was excellent on it's own, but by framing it with your obsession to change Jesse or to break his "addiction" just looks petty, and takes away from your message.
That being said, I do read both blogs for different reasons and respect both for the fine work they do.
Post a Comment