Some of our Thurs morning links

I remember a teacher whose class was studying Shakespeare recounting that one of her students was unimpressed with him, "Shakespeare isn't so great. He uses so many cliches in his writing". :-)

#1 mudbug on 2011-09-15 10:33 (Reply)

I have some difficulty with Drew's article. Not so much that it's unbelievable, because it's very believable.

The difficulty is that Drew himself was once a Marxist revolutionary. If he can change, why can't Obama? I'm not making a case that Obama has changed. That's a matter of opinion.

I'm making a case that we have all said or done things in our past, particularly in college, that we would call into question today. The real issue is just how much we've changed over time.

Drew seems to have shifted his views significantly - why is he unwilling to suppose that Obama hasn't or couldn't have?
The story itself is interesting, it's a shame it didn't get much coverage in 2008, when it may have made a difference. But today I'm not sure it will carry much weight and my own indifference to it, from the standpoint of the person telling the story, is going to cause many MSM outlets to push it aside.

This is purely observational, not judgemental. Many people will read an article like that and take away very different opinions. Obama lovers will find plenty of reasons to defend him (some using the logic I applied above), others will shoot the messenger, and I suspect many people (like myself) will just read it and say "this is interesting, it explains alot, but it's just no longer all that relevant".

In other words, we have bigger fish to fry now. Too bad it wasn't widely available in 2008.

#2 Rick on 2011-09-15 10:46 (Reply)

Rick, it isn't that the REPs rejected info on Obambi's past, all their requests to research it, bring it to the press, or even have the press DO their jobs to vet him fell on deaf, fawning ears.

Its not from a lack of trying - the MSM outright REFUSED to vet, investigate, or even report common known (or even any lacking background), but gosh, they sure seem to find every speck of lint\dirt on the opponent, even if its hearsay or made-up

#2.1 Fred Zeppelin on 2011-09-15 11:50 (Reply)

Yeah? So what's new there? It's been that way for a long time, and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

My point is just that while this article would've been very useful 4 years ago, today it's less important than the reality we face.
And, to play devil's advocate for Obama supporters, all they have to do is make the points I made about reliability of the source, as well as the ability for people to change.

On Maggie's, I don't expect people to support Obama, and I certainly don't support him. But it's easy to see how a story like this didn't manage to see the light of day. Even if it did, it's easy to see how the MSM would discount its value.

I'm not saying that what happened is 'correct'. Just that it is easy to understand given the state of affairs in our nation. In other words, nothing shocking here.

#2.1.1 Rick on 2011-09-15 12:22 (Reply)

Rick,

Quite true - its why I omit newspapers and other media for online versions - they easily pass my BS meter, and can be fact-checked by many other sources.

I respect the Presidential office, and its authority, but nothing says I have to respect his policies, actions, or the man in the chair - whatever the moniker "(_)" he has by his name - ....

#2.1.1.1 Fred Zeppelin on 2011-09-15 12:51 (Reply)

Rick, I've seen no evidence to indicate Obama has changed. Have you?

#3 Sam L. on 2011-09-15 11:00 (Reply)

Sam - I haven't, but I was clear that my comment was not meant to be judgemental in that sense. It's meant to contextualize the commentary.

In other words, what makes one former Marxist a reliable resource for judgement on another former Marxist?

We can go on and on about how one guy is "more reformed" or not, and how believable one is, or not.

Either way, we're now here, and this story would've been much more meaningful 4 years ago. Today, this story is less important than the very frightening realities that we deal with every day.

That was the basis of my difficulty with the article.

#3.1 Rick on 2011-09-15 12:17 (Reply)

If I understand Coyote's article, and I think I did, the European Union's eco-folks counted a reduction in CO2 as valuable to climate conditions, which it isn't in the first place, and then double-counted the absorption of CO2 by biofuel crops, or at any rate exaggerated the effect. So they exaggerated something that was worthless to begin with, and the taxpayers and workers of Europe are having their economies stifled for this.
Yes, that sounds like what Obama would like to do.

#4 Geoff Brown on 2011-09-15 13:57 (Reply)

Funny thing about the Indians, the more casinos they get the fewer Indians there seem to be. Other tribes in california have done the same thing.

#5 grant1863 on 2011-09-15 16:10 (Reply)

"US government wants second-largest Indian tribe to recognize as citizens 2,800 descendants of slaves that were held by Cherokees."

Well, yes - and no. The Cherokee want to drop citizenship for the 2800 who are currently on the rolls, the Administration not only insists those should be kept but the descendants who are not currently citizens - 20,000 or more - be allowed in.

- - - -
That "bio" of Palin - would you believe it, even the NYTimes review calls it out. The LEAST but:

'Although most of “The Rogue” is dated, petty and easily available to anyone with Internet access, Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources like “one resident” and “a friend.”'

Not behond the paywall, either. Read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/books/joe-mcginnisss-the-rogue-on-sarah-palin-review.html?_r=1

#6 John A on 2011-09-15 17:28 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, September 15. 2011

Some of our Thurs morning links