Monday, January 8, 2018

The Destructiveness of Identity Politics

In 1998 a brilliant engineer friend of mine called me and enticed me to come to work for him in starting up a new wireless network engineering consulting firm based out of the San Francisco area.  I was intrigued, so I jumped into my pickup and left Dallas, and gladly sped out to this most paradoxically amazing city.  It was a beautiful place with many interesting people.  It was also a mess and its intrinsic progressivism was not helping to make it better.  That said, the company got off to a good start in spite of this as we had signed several big contracts with large national wireless carriers in the region for our engineering and tower construction services despite the local governmental red tape.

One particular day, my friend and I met with a perspective new client that had agreed in principle to retain our services.  We were sitting together at a business lunch as my friend provided the resumes and profiles of several of the engineers we were offering for the project.  First were the two brothers from South Korea who were smart and knew how to get things done.  Next was the gentleman who was born in Nigeria and educated in the United States.  Then there was the young girl who was a recent college graduate, and then a white gentleman who was originally from the upper mid-west.

The client looked at the profiles, which included pictures, and then commented that he was impressed by the diversity of our engineering staff we had offered and thought very highly of this.  My friend and I looked at each other with a slightly confounded look on each of our faces.  It never occurred to either of us that we were presenting Asians, African-Americans, women, and a token white guy as a matter of filling some diversity quota, but rather these were the people that interviewed with us whom were best qualified for the job.  While obviously being aware of identity politics, it was the first time that it really came clearly into my conscious focus; it was my first real first-hand experience demonstrating that many of our leftist brothers and sisters do indeed look at people first through the prism of race and gender.

Identity politics has continuously crept into American society and has indeed been an integral part of most college curriculums and cultures for decades now as the militant Left in academia have taken the reigns of control over most of our universities and colleges.

Author Bruce Bawer in The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Politics and the Closing of the Liberal Mind regarding this leftist infestation in our institutions of higher learning, wrote the following, 
“The point [became] simply to ‘prove’ – repetitively, endlessly – certain facile, reductive, and invariably left-wing points about the nature of power and oppression.  In this new version of the humanities, all of Western civilization is not analyzed through the use of reason or judged according to aesthetic standards that have been developed over the centuries; rather, it is viewed through prisms of race, class, and gender, and is hailed or condemned in accordance with certain political checklists.”  
But why?  What was the reason and supposed necessity for the Leftist ascendancy of identity politics?

Matthew Continetti, the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon gave a speech last October that provides some insight as to why he thinks this came to be:
“The beginnings of identity politics can be traced to 1973, the year the first volume of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago – a book that demolished any pretense of communism’s moral authority – was published in the West.  The ideological challenge of socialism was fading, its fighting spirit dwindling.  This presented a challenge for the Left: how to carry on the fight against capitalism when its major ideological alternative was no longer viable?
The Left found its answer in an identity politics that grew out of anti-colonialism.  Marx’s class struggle was reformulated into an ethno-racial struggle – a ceaseless competition between colonizer and colonized, victimizer and victim, oppressor and oppressed.  Instead of presenting collectivism and central planning as the gateway to the realization of genuine freedom, the new multiculturalist Left turned to unmasking the supposed power relations that subordinated minorities and exploited third world nations.” 
And so the Left began indoctrinating our impressionable college students during the genesis of this nefarious ideology.  English classes became the study of texts to uncover power relations hidden within them.  History courses became “people’s history and their oppression”.  And of course we saw the rise and development at nearly every university of African-American Studies, Women’s studies, Chicano Studies, Queer Studies, and so forth, as we further tried to balkanize our national populace into disparate sub-groups of Americans. 

Of course anyone having the temerity to point this out was met with being labeled a racist, just as this practice of playing the race card has persisted among our sisters and brothers on the far Left today.

This pernicious ideology of dividing Americans through identity politics has become increasingly pervasive in our national culture.  Indeed on May 5, 2010, Live Oak High School south of San Jose in the Bay area banned “white students” from wearing shirts and clothing with the American flag on it as being provocative to Hispanic students on the Mexican national holiday of Cinco de Mayo.  Never mind that the Hispanic students roamed the campus with a Mexican Flag in celebrating a day that is not an official holiday of their current home nation.  Instead of the principal using this as a teaching moment between Americans of different ancestry, he simply forbid the wearing or displaying of the American flag by students on May 5th. 

While I do find fault with any students attempting to be intentionally provocative and belligerent to their fellow students of Hispanic ancestry, the principal basically curtailed their free speech as Americans.  The case went to court, and the hyper-leftist 9th Circuit of course upheld the principal’s actions.  The Supreme Court later refused to hear the case.

If we continue down this mine-laden path of identity politics and thus continue to divide our citizens into myriads of hyphenated-American subgroups, how can we expect to continue this great American experiment?  How can we keep this melting pot of many various and diverse citizens all coming together as Americans and not as a conglomeration of balkanized sub-groups whom are wary, suspicious, and antagonistic towards other sub-groups?

Last year, Columbia humanities professor Mark Lilla, who is himself a liberal, wrote,
“Identity politics on the left was at first about large classes of people… seeking to redress major historical wrongs by mobilizing and then working through our political institutions to secure their rights.  But by the 1980’s, it had given way to a pseudo-politics of self-regard and increasingly narrow, and exclusionary self-definition that is now cultivated in our colleges and universities.  The main result has been to turn people back onto themselves, rather than turning them outward towards the wider world they share with others.  It has left them unprepared to think about the common good in non-identity terms and what must be done practically to secure it – especially the hard and unglamorous task of persuading people very different from themselves to join a common effort.”
Of course Professor Lilla’s comments were condemned by others on the Left as racist.

The continuing ascendancy of identity politics on the Left has proceeded unabated, especially on the national stage.  In 2012 during the Democrat National Convention, the inclusion of God in their Democrat platform was booed, while issues such as transgender rights to use the restroom of their choice, forcing nuns to purchase health insurance that necessarily included abortifacients, and fining Christian Bakers who refused to use their artistic abilities to furnish a cake for a gay marriage all became pertinent and immediate issues to the Left.

When Hillary Clinton ran for the presidency in 2016, one could find on her campaign website any number of tabs for various ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities, but not a single one about a shared vision of American unity.

It was a far cry from then-Senator Obama’s 2004 DNC keynote speech at John Kerry’s official nomination for president, “There’s not a black America and a white America and a Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.”

It is ironic that such a grand and unifying theme was later abandoned during his own presidency as President Obama seemingly intentionally pitted black and white Americans against each other.  Rather than bringing us together as the United States of America, he proceeded to stoke the flames of race and turned us more into splintered and suspicious groups more akin to the former Yugoslavia.

The Left’s often dismissive, insulting, and self-righteous stance on the issue of identity politics will only continue to further fracture our increasingly-divided nation.  We must return to a love of our history and founding principles as expressed by our founding documents that we are ALL created equal.  We are united by freedom and equality and we should strive to ensure that all of our American brothers and sisters are treated as such, regardless of race, faith, gender, or whatever other potentially dividing characteristic that can be exploited. 

Unlike my client decades ago who reviewed the profiles of perspective engineers to work on his project and saw only their skin color and outward physical characteristics, we should strive to see each other as Americans first and foremost always - as fellow brothers and sisters created in the likeness of God.

Our motto as an American nation is “E pluribus unum” – or “Out of many, one”.  That is the ideal we should strive once again to achieve in this American melting pot, and throw away the divisive and destructive ideology of identity politics into the ash heap of history where it rightly belongs.

98 comments:

Majormajor said...

Left over from last thread

jG,

I think HRC's winning of her party's nomination was unsavory and shady. I would think you would want to know whether our election processes are tainted and manipulated.

T. Paine said...

Majormajor makes a good point. If I were a Bernie supporter, I would be furious at the duplicity of Hillary, Wasserman-Schulz, and the DNC in hijacking the nomination from Sanders. Why aren't the Left screaming for justice in that regard. I disagree with Bernie Sanders on nearly everything, but I think he was at least honest in his convictions. Further, I suspect he would have won the presidency if he had been the Democrat candidate. Those that illegally threw the weight and support of the DNC into Hillary's lap should be held accountable. Don't you agree, JG?

Rain Trueax said...

It is easiest to relate to those who share our values and were raised like we were. I've found this with Asians, Hispanics, and so-called blacks. There are those with whom we can be friends but it's harder without shared values. Skin color means nothing for that-- in my opinion

T. Paine said...

Rain, it is indeed easier to relate with those whom are most similar to ourselves. That said, it is when we push ourselves outside of our comfort zone, that we learn and grow. I grew up in a very "white" suburb of Portland. We had one family in the neighborhood that was black, and the wife babysat me and my brother when we were little. In a high school of nearly 2000 students that encompassed a huge area, we had one black student enrolled. I never thought anything particular about it. When I entered the navy, I was somewhat surprised by the self-segregation of men in our off-time as folks did tend to congregate with others like themselves, as you said. This was the 1980's though, so racism was not tolerated at any time.

All of that said, I had room-mates and ship-mates that came from disparate backgrounds and cultures from myself. I became fast friends with a man named Calvin, who was the son of a Black Baptist preacher. He was funny as all get out and a good and decent man. At night or on shared duty watches, we would often discuss and talk about our very different backgrounds; him being raised as a black kid in the deep south, and me living in the Pacific Northwest who had at that time hardly seen a black person other than our beloved neighbors. I learned that not all people are just like me, and yet all people are just precisely like me. I was proud to be Calvin's friend.

As I was stationed in Puerto Rico and Japan, I got to know some of the local people. While they were different from me and shared very different cultures, they still had the same needs, desires, and basic ideals that I did. It was in those "exotic" places with those different people that I grew the most and thereby learned the most about myself. If I had chosen to live a life based on identity politics, I would have simply never left base and would have only congregated with the white guys that were most like me. Instead I pushed myself beyond my comfort zone and was rewarded with some amazing life experiences and some wonderful new friends accordingly. Out of many different people, we all were of the same human race. :)

Dave Dubya said...

Mr. Paine,

I commend your openness to friendly relations with minorities.

I’m under the impression you feel the client was a “leftist” for merely noting and approving the mulit-racial makeup of the profiles. Since that would be the first thing apparent from photos, how is that “leftist”? Seems it was “leftist” only in your minds when you jumped to some weird connection to “identity politics”.

Thank you for your discussion of identity politics. Once again it appears IOKIYAR.

How is Trumpism not identity politics as well? Very white and very pro-big business. That’s it. Very identity oriented.

Cinco de Mayo? At a single school. Really? That proves what, exactly? Students have had their free speech limited many times before. An anti-Bush banner in Alaska comes to mind.

When Hillary Clinton ran for the presidency in 2016, one could find on her campaign website any number of tabs for various ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities, but not a single one about a shared vision of American unity.

You mean nothing for angry white conservatives. Yes, and Trump was so unifying wasn’t he?

There is no unity without diversity.

I really got to hand it to you. Trump’s racist birtherism once again gets a pass, as you place the blame for flaming racism on the Black Guy. This sounds EXACTLY like “identity politics”. Angry White identity politics.

Nobody is more tribal than angry white conservatives. Now Nazis and racists are “very fine people” marching with tiki torches. Damn that Obama! It’s obviously ALL his fault.

In 2012 during the Democrat National Convention, the inclusion of God in their Democrat platform was booed

Really? That’s how you frame it? It was a voice vote on revising the platform to include Jerusalem named as the capital of Israel.

Is was NOT “God? Yea or nay” as you falsely portray it. God did not get booed. You also neglected to mention the Methodist minister offering the platform change.

And guess what? Obama wanted to include both the Jerusalem part and the phrase about Americans making “the most of their God-given potential”.

This is what you really wanted your readers to know, I’m sure.

Dave Dubya said...

Rain,
You make an excellent point. These days the tribalism of left and right are as divisive as skin color was in the past.

Liberals, moderates, and conservatives are all human beings worthy of the right to be judged on their personal merits or faults alone.

T. Paine said...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/dnc-god-jerusalem-platform_n_1859200.html

From that noted rabid right wing source, The Huffington Post, we have this article entitled, "Democrats’ Efforts To Reinsert ‘God’ And ‘Jerusalem’ Into Platform Met With Loud Opposition" and this excerpt therefrom:

"After they took heat for omitting any reference to 'God' in their platform, and for eliminating language from the 2008 platform that identified Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Democrats tried to add the language back into their party platform with a voice vote."

Basically after three voice votes, the chair claimed (not reasonably in my estimation) that there was indeed a two thirds vote in favor of reinserting the reference to God and Jerusalem as Israel's capital back into the platform. The response for his doing so was overwhelming "boos", just so my readers know.

Majormajor said...

You know Dave, based on your interactions with others here and on other blogs, you seem to identify as a very disagreeable person.

Dave Dubya said...

The response for his doing so was overwhelming "boos", just so my readers know.

Thank you. This is closer to reality than “booing the inclusion of God”. Go listen, the term “overwhelming boos” is just not accurate either.

And let’s be very clear, they were directed at the chair for his questionable call on a “two thirds” vote, not at the inclusion of God.

Your saying so is just wrong.

God knows what you are doing to the truth. Boo to you. ;-)


Dave Dubya said...

Conservative/Trumpist identity politics on display.

Trump at farm convention: "Oh, are you happy you voted for me. You are so lucky that I gave you that privilege."

"I support a bill that includes crop insurance, unless you don't want me too." -- Trump to the Farm Bureau

Claiming to be stable has never been a sign of stability.

And Mr. Paine thinks liberals are screwing the country up?

Hmm, that also sounds like identity politics.

Dave Dubya said...

Just one more, I'm sorry, but it just keeps happening.

More Angry White Identity Politics:

According to the Garden City Telegram Kansas State Rep. Steve Alford (R) spoke out on Saturday against legalizing pot. “What you really need to do is go back in the ’30s, when they outlawed all types of drugs in Kansas [and] across the United States. One of the reasons why, I hate to say it, was that the African-Americans, they were basically users and they basically responded the worst off to those drugs just because of their character makeup, their genetics and that.”

Oops.

Time for someone to tell us he’s “not racist”.

“To me, that’s neutral. Basically, I got called a racist, which I’m really not, and it’s just the way people — the interpretation of people. To me, I’m trying to look at what’s really the best for Kansas.”

Lockin’ them black characters and “their genetics and that “up is what’s best fer Kansas, amirite?

Well, somebody’s got to tell us about character makeup, their genetics, and what’s best for everybody.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

"Identity politics has continuously crept into American society and has indeed been an integral part of most college curriculums and cultures for decades now as the militant Left in academia have taken the reigns of control over most of our universities and colleges." ~~ T. Paine

More hyperbole on your part, Mr. Paine, screaming as if we've been suddenly terrorized by the "militant left". Indeed, professors have historically had a liberal bent. This is not something new, and as a matter fact has traditionally been the foundation of institutions of higher learning. If I'm not mistaken, the original colleges and universities founded around the world were not teaching "conservative arts".

In a white paper called, Why are there so Few Conservatives in Academia?, Kevin Hudson explains the reasoning for this quite clearly. The study found that conservatives aspired to get into higher-paying jobs, while liberals were more likely to be affiliated with community service occupations and were less influenced by monetary gratification.

"And so the Left began indoctrinating our impressionable college students during the genesis of this nefarious ideology. English classes became the study of texts to uncover power relations hidden within them. History courses became 'people’s history and their oppression'. And of course we saw the rise and development at nearly every university of African-American Studies, Women’s studies, Chicano Studies, Queer Studies, and so forth, as we further tried to balkanize our national populace into disparate sub-groups of Americans." ~~ T. Paine

"Impressionable college student"? More unwarranted exaggeration and opinion.

"English classes became the study of texts to uncover power relations..." More unnecessary exaggerations on your part. In my world we call these "literature or historical literature classes".

"Queer Studies"? Gee, Mr. Paine, I wouldn't have expected this intentional denigrating remark from you. (In retrospect, I would.) Why didn't you commence your hatefulness, and instead of starting out with calling them "African-American Studies", just label them "Nigger Studies"? That's really what you wanted to do, isn't it?

The supreme irony here is you're the one trying to "balkanize our national populace into disparate sub-groups".


"Rather than bringing us together as the United States of America, he proceeded to stoke the flames of race and turned us more into splintered and suspicious groups more akin to the former Yugoslavia." ~~ T. Paine

And this current president has, somehow, avoided this? Tsk, tsk, Mr. Paine. Your ability to look straight through what's happening right in front of you is amazing.


"Our motto as an American nation is 'E pluribus unum”' – or 'Out of many, one'. That is the ideal we should strive once again to achieve in this American melting pot..." ~~ T. Paine

Do you mean like Trump's latest take on presidential medals?...where [g]one is the national motto, E pluribus unum, meaning 'out of many, one.' In its place appears the president’s campaign slogan, 'Make America Great Again,' which the administration has also used on official White House documents. He departed tradition of previous administrations with this change.

In graduate school I recall the term "tossed salad" was more indicative of American society now. "Melting pot" is a euphemism from long ago, Mr. Paine, where your mindset still resides today.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

"I would think you would want to know whether our election processes are tainted and manipulated." ~~ Chuck

I do want to know, and furthermore think they are. I've commented about this several times in the last few years, thus I see no reason for your statement. This should have already been apparent to you.


"Don't you agree, JG?" ~~ T. Paine

Yes, by all means -- but in the end Senator Saunders threw his endorsement behind Ms. Clinton and I threw my support behind Ms. Stein.

Oh well. When both major political parties are corrupt as the day is long, there are never any easy fixes. In these cases, history proves replacements to be the only remedy.


"...based on your interactions with others here and on other blogs, you seem to identify as a very disagreeable person." ~~ Chuck

More distraction, projection and intentional taunting on the part of our unlovable village idiot. As usual, nothing is mentioned about this post's topic. Nothing at all.

The term for this is trolling.

T. Paine said...

Jerry, not only do I want the FBI to conduct the investigation, but I want them to be very thorough. My issue is when there are agents that are key members of the investigation that have texted that they are to be the "insurance policy" in case the evil Trump did get elected. It politicizes and polarizes the FBI. It undermines the credibility of any findings they may encounter. I certainly don't want blind Trump loyalists doing the investigation either. I expect agents' loyalty to be first and foremost to the law, Constitution, and We The People. If crimes have been committed, then the guilty should be held accountable, sir.

Next, Mr. Dubya, when the chairman erroneously said the motion passed to reinsert God and Jerusalem as Israel's capital back into the platform, the response to that call was nothing but boos. Go listen yourself, sir.

And yes, let's be very clear, they booed the chairman because he ignored the obvious will of the crowd (albeit probably not the required two thirds) and reinserted God and Jerusalem into the platform. They were mad that God and Jerusalem were reinserted, contrary to the majority will. They weren't just booing some parliamentary procedure. They were mad and booing because what the vote represented. They WERE booing God and Jerusalem as Israel's capital and the fact that the chair ignored their will. Your lawyer-like semantics to wiggle out of the truth sure don't seem to jibe with the spirit of the truth, Dave. That is something a Pharisee would do and God is indeed watching.

Majormajor said...

jG, get a grip on it.

T. Paine said...

" 'Queer Studies'? Gee, Mr. Paine, I wouldn't have expected this intentional denigrating remark from you. (In retrospect, I would.) Why didn't you commence your hatefulness, and instead of starting out with calling them 'African-American Studies', just label them 'Nigger Studies'? That's really what you wanted to do, isn't it?" ~ JG

JG, don't lower yourself to troll status too. I suspect you are old enough or knowledgeable enough to recall that "Queer Studies" is exactly what gay studies was entitled when these courses first appeared in the preceding decades, so spare me your feigned outrage, self-righteous indignation and then predictable playing of the race card. Do tell, what does the "Q" stand for in today's acronym of LGBTQ? We don't need another pompous ass trolling this blog so knock off your crap!

And yes, I have hear the "tossed salad" analogy as being a more appropriate description of today's American society. I would submit to you that identity politics is a primary cause of this phenomena and the destruction of the American melting pot. Further, just so we are clear (and I am sure I will be ignored on this) I unequivocally condemn any and all racism, whether it is from some Kansas idiot, President Trump, or advocates of identity politics. None of those do anything but to further splinter our society instead of bringing us back together. Frankly, based on some of your and Dave's past comments, I suspect you would prefer things the way they are today. God knows there wouldn't be nearly as much to bitch about if we all saw each other as Americans first instead of some hyphenated American tribal unit, but then the left wouldn't have as much special interest money coming into their politicians if we stopped demonizing and dehumanizing people as "other".

woodenman1954 said...

JG, you are behind the times, the word Queer is now an accepted way of describing the various types of gay people.The Huffington Post has a section supporting gays called Queer Voices and gay activist and authors now call themselves queer.

Maybe it is like how the word Liberal got turned into a insult due to the Conservatives constant criticism of it and people used it less and less to describe them selves. So now gays are defiantly calling themselves queer as I still call myself a far Left Liberal.

Which makes your nigger studies comment asinine.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

"jG, get a grip on it." ~~ Chuck

What exactly is the "it" you're referencing, Chuck? It sounds as though you're not disagreeing with my statement that you're deceptive, projecting and intentionally provoking and taunting, and are demanding that I deal with it.

Is this correct? Yes, or no? If no, please explain. Otherwise, I stand by my statement.

T. Paine said...

James, thank you. You are a breath of fresh air, sir.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Woodenman1954, it's common practice and internally acceptable within groups of young blacks, for example, to call each other "nigger". The same is applicable for gays.

What I found devisive and intentionally inappropriate was Mr. Paine using the term, "Queer Studies". I know of no collegiate or university programs calling LGBT programs, "Queer Studies", despite Mr. Paine's insistence.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Woodenman1954, from most of your abbreviated commentary over the last year, I've never seen you as a "far left liberal". More a comfortable corporate Democrat.

Majormajor said...

One of the things about liberals and leftist is their common belief that Conservatives are dumb, that they NEED to look down on conservatives.

Selwyn Duke wrote in the American Thinker of 1/9/2018, shared her reasons for this.
"Why, I had a liberal actor (excuse the redundancy) tell me once that I
wasn't necessarily bad, just not as "evolved" as he was. (I had a great
retort at the ready, but I decided just to lash him with my tail instead.)"

But why do they NEED to do this?

"This phenomenon is common. It's often exhibited by those considering
themselves part of a "master race" or any kind of special group. It can
be comforting: a person may not be accomplished, intelligent, or gifted
and might otherwise feel inadequate. But his group association saves
his psyche's day, for whatever he is or isn't, at least he's not like
those other people, those untouchables."

The phenomenon in question here is a deeply emotional one.

"For this reason, it's wholly resistant to intellectual appeals. You can't
logically talk someone out of something irrational on which his
self-worth is based. In fact, if it begins to dawn on such a person
that his notions of superiority – and hence his self-image – rest on a
lie, it will be intensely painful and depressing. The individual will
thus have a strong incentive to rationalize away this realization."

"This phenomenon is exacerbated by two related factors. First, liberals are
generally dysfunctional, vice-ridden people who embrace what we call
liberalism because its underlying relativism and nihilism help them
justify their sins. (They become the arbiters of their own "values." "Everything is gray, a matter of perspective. I have my own 'truth.'") Simultaneously, liberalism allows these virtue-bereft people to virtue-signal by paying homage to the day's fashionable values. In other words, liberals are generally morally "unaccomplished" people who often have nothing to cling to but the illusion of intellectual, and often moral, superiority."

"Second, conservatives are more likely to have authentic faith, while liberals tend be to avowed or de facto atheists, which is why church attendance is one of the best predictors of voting patterns. This has an effect. Theists may, and I hope will, recognize moral differences among people and groups; any tendency to become haughty, however, is often tempered by a divine injunction prescribing humility and the knowledge that we're all sinners, part of a fallen race. Love for others is also demanded. Atheism involves no such requirements; in fact, its correlative moral relativism or nihilism (explained here) makes "if it feels good, do it" the ultimate guide for behavior. Moreover, unable to look up at divine perfection, and with the individual becoming his own source of (pseudo-) "morality," the self is often exalted, the ego deified. As with a pharaoh believing he's a god on Earth, it then becomes easy to look down on others."

Just as liberalism is defined not by an unchanging set of doctrines, but by
opposition to conservatism and what it defends – the status quo – godless liberals can judge themselves only relative to other people. And being moral train wrecks, they can't really be happy. But hey, whatever they may or mayn't be, Mr. Conservative, at least they're not you. And that's one status quo they're dead set on maintaining."

Majormajor said...

Well said Woodsman, well said.

T. Paine said...

JG, are you being intentionally obtuse, or did you perhaps simply misread my statement? I said that "Queer Studies" is what the departments were called when they first came into existence decades ago. The same is true of Chicano Studies now being called Hispanic Studies. Evidently you would rather keep fighting than admit you were wrong in this latest nonsense. Further, you still haven't answered my question; if it is such a derogatory term, why does the LGBTQ society include it in their acronym today?

You chose instead to go to the old standby and throw down the race card. Frankly it makes you look foolish twice, instead of just once.

TB3 said...

"African-American Studies, Women’s studies, Chicano Studies, Queer Studies"

All courses, if they are offered at colleges, are not core educational requirements. You should probably clarify that. Colleges have ALL KINDS of niche courses that you can take that aren't part of the core curriculum.

"Of course anyone having the temerity to point this out was met with being labeled a racist, just as this practice of playing the race card has persisted among our sisters and brothers on the far Left today."

What exactly are you saying that people label you a racist, T.Paine?


"Indeed on May 5, 2010, Live Oak High School south of San Jose in the Bay area banned “white students” from wearing shirts and clothing with the American flag on it as being provocative to Hispanic students on the Mexican national holiday of Cinco de Mayo."

They didn't "ban" "white students". It wasn’t an official policy. The day of Cinco De Mayo, they asked students who happened to be white to turn their shirts inside out, because they were worn to purposely antagonize the hispanic student population on that day. Apparently there was a history of antagonism on both sides. I agree this could have been handled better by the school's administrators, but it was an in the moment decision, not a policy.

"If we continue down this mine-laden path of identity politics and thus continue to divide our citizens into myriads of hyphenated-American subgroups, how can we expect to continue this great American experiment? How can we keep this melting pot of many various and diverse citizens all coming together as Americans and not as a conglomeration of balkanized sub-groups whom are wary, suspicious, and antagonistic towards other sub-groups?"

How? Respecting others? Understanding? I am not a Catholic, but it does not bother me or affect me in any way that you are a Catholic-American, or an American Catholic if you prefer no hyphens. Just because people identify as things that you are not does not mean it also must affect you. Live and let live, right? I mean, these divisions didn't just appear in the 1970s. Hell, Teddy Roosevelt famously made speeches decrying the practice of identifying as a hyphenated Americans. We wouldn't have entire sections of towns segemented off and named for their respective groups- Germantown, Little Italy, Greek Town, Chinatown, Koreatown. We have had ugly periods in our history that made it very apparent that there are divides amongst our population- Slavery, Reconstruction and the KKK, blatant racism such as 'Irish/Catholic Need Not Apply' in the windows of shops/classified ads.

Self-Segregation and seeking to be a member of a group is natural, especially for minority (Not just racial) groups. When the majority is actively or passively antagonistic of you or your group, you seek comfort in those of like mind or similar circumstance. Why do you worship at a church rather than the local synagogue? Christianity started off as an off-shoot of Judiasm. They couldn't worship their way at the local synagogue, so they worshipped together elsewhere amongst themselves and started to identify themselves as something other when it was clear they could not identify as members of the majority group.

How do we proceed? We proceed by accepting these groups and understand one another. I find it interesting that the very thing done to make sure people know you're an American has become bemoaned by people who decry "identity politics". African-American. Jewish-American. Italian-American. The Hyphen American proudly labels these individuals as Americans. It's not ambiguous. Seems silly to quibble over the adjective that gets placed in front of the hyphen. I also find it interesting that this post, which was very thought provoking by the way, is framed in a Left vs Right theme. Kind of ironic.

TB3 said...

JG,

"Queer Studies" is an actual thing that is actually called that. It's usually a certificate or minor program in the broader Humanities studies.

T. Paine said...

"Woodenman1954, from most of your abbreviated commentary over the last year, I've never seen you as a 'far left liberal'. More a comfortable corporate Democrat." ~ JG

Why is that JG? Because James can argue his points without being nasty and divisive? Because he doesn't attack to make his view known? James and I agree on very little politically because he is a "far left liberal" but I respect him because he is honorable and a gentleman and cogently argues his point. We have an exchange of ideas and ideals instead of stooping to the denigration of each other as humans. That is the reason I want to blog is to discuss issues with such intelligent people; not to play class warfare and race cards and fascism cards every other damned post.

T. Paine said...

"What exactly are you saying that people label you a racist, T.Paine?" ~ TB3

Lol! Yep. Either implicitly or explicitly... all the damned time. Sometimes it takes the form of "I am not calling you a racist, but all of your viewpoints are racist."

"Just because people identify as things that you are not does not mean it also must affect you. Live and let live, right?" ~ TB3

Absolutely! It is like the quotation in my post says, when our entire focus is looking inwards at ourselves, at our differences, we then fail to look outwards at what we also have in common with those who may be different from us in other ways.

"Self-Segregation and seeking to be a member of a group is natural, especially for minority (Not just racial) groups. When the majority is actively or passively antagonistic of you or your group, you seek comfort in those of like mind or similar circumstance." ~ TB3

This is absolutely true; we all naturally tend to gravitate to those who are most like us. That said, when we get out of our comfort zone and reach out towards others who seemingly may be different at first, we find that we have commonalities between us, especially as Americans. It is during such times that I have grown the most and made some of my most rewarding relationships in my life. Those are the things I am encouraging us to strive towards again - to strive to replace that tossed salad back to the melting pot - where we can be proud of who we are in our differences and distinctness but still know that we are a bigger part of a very large group called Americans.

The post was posed as a "left versus right theme" in the context of the genesis of identity politics on the left to replace the failed policies of communism/socialism as per Matthew Continetti's quotation. It is the Left that promulgated this ideology in recent decades, sir.

Dave Dubya said...

there wouldn't be nearly as much to bitch about if we all saw each other as Americans first instead of some hyphenated American tribal unit,

It appears you agree with my earlier statement, although I applied the term human beings instead of Americans.

These days the tribalism of left and right are as divisive as skin color was in the past.

Liberals, moderates, and conservatives are all human beings worthy of the right to be judged on their personal merits or faults alone.


”they booed the chairman” Yes. We agree on this fact, but not on the “overwhelming” characterization. The boos were nowhere near as loud as either the yeas or nays.

They WERE booing God and Jerusalem as Israel's capital

This is the illogical stretch. They booed the chairman. This is all you, or anyone, can state as fact.

They second accusation is a separate generalized one. It ignores the possibility the boos were for the capital issue alone, which is most likely, or the mention of God alone, which is less likely.

They were two separate points up for vote which should have been voted separately. You deceptively conjoin them as “God and Jerusalem” being booed.

Did you happen to see how the youtube video was focused on reactions by Arab Democrats? It would seem they would be opposed the Jerusalem clause alone. You arbitrarily assign motives you have no way of knowing. Blame and smearing without evidence is the conservative MO. You never disappoint .

And of course, so what anyway? Lockstep conformity is a more a conservative characteristic than it is for others. Atheists, Muslims and Arabs are just as much Americans as religious people. The founders wisely kept God out of our Constitution and opposed any religious test for office.

I unequivocally condemn any and all racism, whether it is from some Kansas idiot, President Trump, or advocates of identity politics. None of those do anything but to further splinter our society instead of bringing us back together.

I heartily agree. Although you still have me confused. Are you saying “identity politics” is only on the left?

It swings both ways, or do you deny that?

As I’ve shown, “Positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify” is hardly the exclusive domain of the Left.

Remember “Real” Americans spewing hate at Trump rallies? Tiki torch parades? Are you saying these Rightists are not advancing their divisive “identity politics”?

Be honest.



Jefferson's Guardian said...

"...instead of stooping to the denigration of each other as humans." ~~ T. Paine

So why do you consistently persist in using language (e.g., "militant left", "Queer Studies") that is designed to antagonize and divide? Do you ever reread what you post?

Your side is known for decisiveness. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Rain Trueax said...

It's not so much economics as similar values. I am from a lower economic class. Ky husband from more middle class economically. My parents cleaned houses, buildings (me too) but he and i were raised with the same values of honesty and respect. It's not a $$$ or color but ethical beliefs. When they are different-- like theft is okay-- it's harder to find common grounds. I've had friends who are wealthy and those poor-- but if we become friends, it was because we shared values

T. Paine said...

JG, I use "militant left" not as a pejorative, but rather as a descriptive identifier of whom I am speaking. Not all on the left agree with the political correctness of identity politics; however, most of the militant or far left typically do.

As for using the term "Queer Studies", you have now been informed by both Woodenman and TB3 as fellow liberals that the term is still used today and is not derogatory, hence the reason it is still a part of the acronym LGBTQ used today, which you still refuse to acknowledge.

My "side" is indeed known for its "decisiveness". The militant-antifa-type far left are known for their divisiveness. Do you ever reread what you post, sir?

TB3 said...

TP,

"That said, when we get out of our comfort zone and reach out towards others who seemingly may be different at first, we find that we have commonalities between us, especially as Americans. It is during such times that I have grown the most and made some of my most rewarding relationships in my life."

And you're still a conservative? :)

"...to strive to replace that tossed salad back to the melting pot - where we can be proud of who we are in our differences and distinctness but still know that we are a bigger part of a very large group called Americans."

I fail to see the difference between the tossed salad metaphor and the melting pot. Neither can be separated back into it's component pieces... unless you're referring to those godless people who eat their salad DRY...

"The post was posed as a "left versus right theme" in the context of the genesis of identity politics on the left to replace the failed policies of communism/socialism as per Matthew Continetti's quotation. It is the Left that promulgated this ideology in recent decades, sir."

So... what's the point again? Are we trying to have the right reclaim identity politics? What's the objective here or pointing a finger at one side of the political spectrum and going 'This is your fault'? It's difficult for that to be the springboard to successfully bridge the gap and bring people together. The premise starts us off as "us vs them". And since I do not have access to Mr. Continetti's full text, what failed policies was he referring to that necessitated shifting from economic theory to identity politics?

Dave Dubya said...

Major,

Isn’t Selwyn Duke the nut who said Obama is purging the military of white, Christian men in order to make the soldiers loyal to him for the inevitable imposition of martial law?

One of the things about liberals and leftist is their common belief that Conservatives are dumb, that they NEED to look down on conservatives

Maybe the long list of false beliefs held by conservatives is why they want to think liberals have the "common belief" cons are dumb.

Pizza-gate, Obama the Kenyan Marxist, Climate science dismissed in favor of Big Oil propaganda, "war on Christmas", etc.

For more of the long list of false beliefs:

http://www.davedubya.com/2017/12/welcome-to-cult-america.html


Dave Dubya said...

My "side" is indeed known for its "decisiveness".

Especially with their evidence-free accusations of liberals.

And unilateral definition of terms like “militant”, of course. Tiki torch parades are exempt, but those who oppose them are the “militant” ones. Just ask the victims and family of Heather Heyer.

“One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.” ~ Bertrand Russell

T. Paine said...

"And you're still a conservative? :)" ~ TB3

LOL! Yes, I am sir. Reaching out to those that may not at first appearance seem to be like me is not a reason for me to lose all sense of my faculties and logic! :)

"I fail to see the difference between the tossed salad metaphor and the melting pot. Neither can be separated back into it's component pieces... unless you're referring to those godless people who eat their salad DRY..." ~ TB3

Well, I suppose the salad metaphor is such that you can separate the parts, if you chose to put in a lot of effort, while the melting pot is all but impossible to do so. As for salad, it is far too healthy for me and I despise it accordingly. The only green thing that I consume is Mountain Dew. :)

My point in discussing the genesis of modern identity politics was not solely to impart blame, but as to provide context as to how it came to be. We cannot fix a problem if we don't know what caused it. I think it is important for people to know and understand their ancestry and personal history, as well as the history of our nation.

As for Mr. Continetti, his premise was that with the demise of any moral underpinnings for communism, the militant left had to reinvent their economic and political opposition to capitalism in a different manner. It became an ethno-economic struggle against capitalism and the bourgeois trappings of it accordingly that they protested with the development of modern identity politics.

T. Paine said...

Rain, your are precisely correct! That is exactly what I am talking about here. It is our common values that can and should bring us together. Class, race, and other such physical factors are far less important to our commonality than who we are inside; what we value, what we want, hope, and dream for accordingly!

T. Paine said...

"Especially with their evidence-free accusations of liberals." ~ Mr. Dubya

Mr. Pot, have you had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Kettle?

“One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.” ~ Bertrand Russell

If I were easily wounded or overly sensitive, I think I would be offended that Dave just called me stupid in a backhanded way. I wonder if that would qualify as an "evidence-free accusation"?

I think certainty can sometimes be found when you understand that there are indeed SOME things that are right and wrong, black and white, and that some objective truths do indeed exist.

When one lives in a gray world with no moral certitude and everyone can make up their own rules, it may indeed spur imagination, but it also creates doubt, confusion, indecision, and moral ambiguity.

Dave Dubya said...

Russell quote was food for thought, not an accusation.

It was a "certainty" Saddam had working ties to al_Qaeda and Nukular aluminum tubes, weren't we?

Now we have the certainty "identity politics" is only a liberal manifestation too?

Dave Dubya said...

And lest we forget, the "certainty" the inclusion of God in the platform was booed by an "overwhelming" mob of godless Democrats.

Dave Dubya said...

And lest we forget, the "certainty" the inclusion of God in the platform was booed by an "overwhelming" mob of godless Democrats.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Mr. Paine, despite the reaffirming of "fellow liberals" that you are correct in using the term "queer" as a proper descriptor of people in the gay (or otherwise) community, the term only finds acceptance by a few - and only when speaking about, or of, one another. It's use is not common, and as I mentioned earlier, no more than black youth calling each other "nigger".

Ealier today, I talked to a person who works side-by-side with the gay population on a daily basis. She confirmed this.

By the way, Mr. Paine, I'm not immune to admitting when I'm wrong, and neither when I think or feel "fellow liberals" are. Unfortunately, I cannot see this quality within you when fellow conservatives are blatantly incorrect. You're not interested in "shared values" and meaningful dialogue, as much has having others reaffirm your own misguided or outdated beliefs.

Majormajor said...

Mr. Paine,

Glad you are taking the gloves off in dealing with lefty Dave and jG.

Shining the light of truth on them further exposes them for what they really are. They can't handle having their true motives exposed. Look at their reaction to Rain, Carrie and now Woodenman, Like from the article I quoted above, they consider themselves part of a "master race" or any kind of special group that is superior than anyone else.

TB3 said...

"The only green thing that I consume is Mountain Dew. :)"

And this is why you go on these adventures through our National Parks. At least that's what I'd have to do if I subsisted on the same diet I had when I was in High School!

"My point in discussing the genesis of modern identity politics was not solely to impart blame, but as to provide context as to how it came to be. We cannot fix a problem if we don't know what caused it. I think it is important for people to know and understand their ancestry and personal history, as well as the history of our nation."

I'm just not seeing it. I'm not getting the context, I'm getting blame.

"It is ironic that such a grand and unifying theme was later abandoned during his own presidency as President Obama seemingly intentionally pitted black and white Americans against each other."

See? No context. Blame. Also you don't actually explain how he seemingly intentionally pitted black and white Americans against each other. I do not see President Obama "proceeded to stoke the flames of race". I've noticed that this is an assertion you've made numerous times over the past administration, but there's no substance. Just accusation and blame.

"As for Mr. Continetti, his premise was that with the demise of any moral underpinnings for communism...."

Maybe it's because the little bit of what Mr. Continetti wrote/said that you offered here isn't enough context for me, I don't know. Is there a weblink you can offer? Or is this an exert out of a book? I'm not understanding how 1) This all started in the '70's and 2) How you get from a group of people nebulously advocating for communism/socialism to stoking race/identity politics. Especially since such divisions and identities have always existed. The "modern" discriptor just doesn't make sense to me. I also can not get past the need to frame this as a Left and Right thing. I recognize you abhor the reality of the artificial division between people... I'm just not getting the point that you think you're making. Gay-Americans are Americans. They just want to be accepted as Americans. African-American are Amerians. People study certain subjects in schools, such as African-American studies, LGBTQ studies, Hispanic-American Studies... the availability of these things to study shouldn't be viewed as a negative and I'm failing to understand why the premise is that it is.

Dave Dubya said...

TB3,

“Just accusation and blame.” Some of us have noticed this pattern. Trump and the KKK and white supremacists go unmentioned when blaming inflamed racism on the Black Guy. (Mr. Paine is not a racist. He just blames liberals and Blacks more than conservative Whites for racism, that’s all.)

This reflects their reactionary nature. Liberals have been demonized, blamed for everything, and accused of being wrong about everything. This ingrained ideology has been feeding on itself for decades. It is become doctrine and dogma above question, therefore no supporting evidence is required for their blanket blame for those they do not understand.

Note the absence of addressing my issue with conservative identity politics. IOKIYAR (It’s OK if you are Republican) is the bottom line.

This is why we have an admitted sex offender like Trump in the White House. Their cult of personality mixed with their indoctrination against liberals could only result in this degradation of our “post truth” political process, assault on the press, undermining public education, demonization of higher learning, and attacks on public health. Even our FBI and intelligence agencies are attacked and undermined for not being politically correct conservatives. Yet when BLM protests bad cops killing unarmed Blacks, they are tagged as a “racist hate group”.

That is where you’ll find true identity politics, as they project it at liberals. Seeking equality is called “identity politics” for liberals. But for some reason, the seeking of dominance by white conservatives and big business isn’t identity politics in their black and white world of certainty.

They will never understand liberals because whatever we say is automatically ignored and dismissed as “wrong”. Period.

Now watch me be accused of something for this comment. The issues will be ignored, and they will make it about me. Attack the messenger. It’s easier than debating with evidence and reason.

This is also the reason my list of false beliefs is ignored as well, for only liberals are wrong.

Majormajor said...

I agree with Dave Dubya "only liberals are wrong".

woodenman1954 said...

JG, from years of reading Mr. Paine's comments I have formed the opinion that he is a real mensch, I hope that does not make me a traitor to the whole Liberal cause. So when you insinuated he would like to refer to black people as niggers it rubbed me the wrong way.

It is true I have not commented here much lately, I am a natural born speed reader but a lousy typist so that holds me back somewhat. My political views have not changed, I voted for Jill Stein in the last three elections and I am as anti-corporate as you can get.

Mr. Paine was happy to get his 1000 check but now Comcast and AT&T are laying off thousands and those checks are turning into severance packages. Altruism does not exist in the corprate world.

TB3 said...

"I agree with Dave Dubya "only liberals are wrong"."

I give that a 2/10. Too obvious trolling.

DD,

I understand your frustrations. It can be disheartening, disillusioning and discouraging talking at or around people. To paraphrase a great compromiser: We're Democrats and Republicans, but we're Americans and patriots first.

It's like with our families. We're Americans and we're stuck with one another. We might as well stop talking at one another and try to start talking to one another. Maybe talk to one another with a goal of understanding rather than to change minds. At least in the short term. Minds change with time. Sometimes. Unless the mind is set to Troll. :)

Majormajor said...

TB just quoting Dave, got a problem, take it up with him.

Dave,

what part of Duke's article do you disagree with?

woodenman1954 said...

Chuck, you are making me feel embarrassed and sorry for you, I hope that is not what you want.

TB3 said...

Are you ten, or something, MM? I mean, if you are, kudos for you spending your time on political blogs. If you're not... than why are you responding as a ten year old might? You're stringing words together that Dave typed, but that's not quoting him. You typically learn the concept of quoting and paraphrasing in your 'tween years. I'll modify my Trolling Score, since it got you to respond. I'm upping it to 7/10. No nuance, still obvious.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Woody, I'm sorry my remark toward Mr. Paine rubbed you the wrong way, but please understand his "queer" statement, which was unnecessary and only included to provoke, did the same to me. Too often this is his modus operandi and I intend to call him on it when I see it.

My purpose was to make a point. I see it only created hostility in him and anguish for you. For this I apologize.

T. Paine said...

"I'm just not seeing it. I'm not getting the context, I'm getting blame." ~ TB3

My apologies if that is all you are seeing. If you were someone other than who you are, I would suspect that is because many good folks on the Left are conditioned to seeing themselves blamed for all of societies ills. (Sometimes there is even basis in fact for such blame.) :)

"See? No context. Blame. Also you don't actually explain how he seemingly intentionally pitted black and white Americans against each other. I do not see President Obama "proceeded to stoke the flames of race". I've noticed that this is an assertion you've made numerous times over the past administration, but there's no substance." ~ TB3

I have actually given concrete examples of this several times in the past, and then the battle is joined by one of our frequent commenters who simply dismisses every point, assigns blame back at the right, and then plays the race card.

At the risk of wading through the cesspool again, I will give you a few examples.

In the 2010 elections Obama brazenly called on Hispanics saying, “we’re gonna punish our enemies and were gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” How is that not pitting people against each other?

Even little things like allowing himself to become entrenched in what should have remained a local matter when Professor Gates was arrested by a white officer resulting in the infamous White House beer summit. It was an unnecessary escalation of racial tensions.

The same was true when President Obama personalized the killing of Trayvon Martin by saying if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon. So what? How does that pertain to the situation except to inflame race issues?

And then there is the inviting of BLM leaders to the White House, despite many of their marches being hijacked from within and thus turning to violence and rioting. Does this provide good optics on race relations to the nation?

Even Vice President Joe Biden’s 2012 comment to a largely black audience that Republicans intended to “put you back in chains" was an egregious case of pitting black folk against evil white folk Republicans.

These just scratch the surface, sir.

"As for Mr. Continetti, his premise was that with the demise of any moral underpinnings for communism...."

I took Mr. Continetti's comments from a speech he did last year. I have a hard copy that I printed out, but I am unable to find the original link. I will keep searching for you. Obviously forms of identity politics preceded the 1970's as you yourself pointed out. It is Mr. Continetti's contention that the current strain of it started in academia after the release of Solzhenitsyn's book describing the moral horrors of Communism. The fact that disaffected supporters of communism/socialism could not rely on a moral pretext for supporting it, they then reinvented their arguments as struggles and oppression of people of color.

Last, I wouldn't complain about the studying of various American "sub-groups" if it was an academic exercise to teach history, economics, and such without the implied and inherent "us versus them in America" agenda. In other words, I would support studying the aspects of different sub-groups if the intent was NOT to make students turn inward, thus seeing themselves as victims, rather than outward as a vital ingredient in our American melting pot.

Dave Dubya said...

For this I apologize.

This admission of human insensitivity is rare in the conservative world. It is a sign of weakness to admit we are human and err at times.

I abhor seeing and hearing the N-word. The sooner the word goes extinct, the better.

T. Paine said...

"(Mr. Paine is not a racist. He just blames liberals and Blacks more than conservative Whites for racism, that’s all.)" ~ Dubya

And there you have it, Mr. TB3. It is a variation on my paraphrasing of Mr. Dubya's past comments, but you get the gist. Everyone knows that if you are a conservative, by definition you are also a racist, right Dave?

It does not matter that I have answered Dave's bullying and incessant demands in the past. It doesn't matter that I acknowledged those few items where credible evidence existed of President Trump's racism. It doesn't matter that I have always condemned the KKK, neo-Nazi's, white supremacists etc. In an article about the genesis and promulgation of identity politics as created by the far left, he whines, "What about the right's identity politics? How come you don't address that? Racist!"

Dave, if you feel so strongly about it, may I suggest you write about it on your own blog. I am a conservative and will therefore typically point out problems created on the Left. I don't EVER see you being even the slightest bit magnanimous, let alone writing about both sides being guilty in your past articles, so don't come preaching and whining over here.

I have admitted to not voting for or liking President Trump, as I voted for Darryl Castle. I acknowledged his egregious sexual exploits tape and condemned him for it. I have acknowledged the need for an OBJECTIVE and TRUTH-TELLING press. I have been an advocate of higher education, when it is not agenda driven to further indoctrinate more militant leftist snowflakes that whine and scream from their safe zones. I have stated that the FBI should investigate objectively all credible accusations against Trump. I have stated that SOME of the folks within the BLM

through their violence, rioting, and even a few false accusations (I refer to the innocent officer in the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson) have diluted and weakened an otherwise good and important message. No decent person supports police using unwarranted deadly force against people of color, or anybody else.

All of these clarifications and denunciations are not enough for our friend, Mr. Dubya, though. He won't quit his incessant demonizing and bullshitting until everyone agrees completely with him. And evidently it is fair game in his mind to keep returning to these same accusations repeatedly and ad nauseum, even though they have already been addressed, denied, and positions firmly taken that often agree with at least the spirit of his complaints.

T. Paine said...

There are those that understand the authority of the truth and try to be faithful to it accordingly. There are those that understand the authority of the truth and chose to ignore it for their own ends and are thus liars accordingly. And then there are those that deny there is any authority in truth and simply spew their nonsense for their own gain. Those are the bullshitters. I will let our readers decide which category Mr. Dubya falls into of the latter two.

He attacks me, and then whines that I will likely respond by "attacking the messenger" as if he were the arbiter and bringer of truth. This is the bullshitter. response.

"This is also the reason my list of false beliefs is ignored as well, for only liberals are wrong." ~ Dubya

Last time... I am not going to kowtow to every whiny-ass demand you insist upon for me, Dave. I neither have the time nor inclination because my response is never good enough or doesn't go far enough or doesn't stroke your ego or whatever the hell have you. I have spent inordinate amounts of time in the past attempting to do so. No more.

My apologies to any of my readers that I may have offended with my profanity. I am simply annoyed past the point of wishing to deal with duplicity any more.

Last, I realize that the purpose of Dave's nonsense is to garner a response, and I am guilty of feeding the beast here, but I am going to put forth the effort to ignore such nonsense and only address civil and sincere comments and questions from him going forward. Cheers to all!

T. Paine said...

JG, I certainly did not intend to provoke, offend, or annoy anyone with my "queer studies" comment. As I have already stated, it was the actual title of the class when first offered decades ago. Further, it is a term that is still used today, and not as a pejorative. If it offended you or you thought I was being intentionally antagonistic, I sincerely apologize. Such was not my intent.

All of that said, you need to be mindful of your ever-more-belligerent M.O., sir, as I will call you on it as well. I am done with Mr. Dubya and yourself behaving as such.

TB3 said...

"My apologies if that is all you are seeing."

I'm just needing more information, guess I'm looking for more long-form than you have the time and inclination for. You covered a lot in your post, I shouldn't expect a 10,000 word Novella. It's a nuanced topic and you're clearly brushing the surface of what's on your mind.

"At the risk of wading through the cesspool again, I will give you a few examples."

Don't wade. I recognize you've brought these up before and forgot until I read them again, so I apologize. I don't agree and/or have rationales for those examples, but I'm with you. I don't think that scab needs to be ripped off in this comment section.

Mr. Continetti: Don't break your back finding it. I'd love to see it to get a better understanding of where you're coming from so I'm going to look myself. I'm interested in the Solzhenitsyn book referenced, too, but I'm not likely to track that one down. I read books one at a time and at a snails pace. By the time I get to it, I'll have forgotten why I wanted to look into it. :)

"Last, I wouldn't complain about the studying of various American "sub-groups" if it was an academic exercise to teach history, economics, and such without the implied and inherent "us versus them in America" agenda."

I am unconvinced that this isn't already the case. Why do you think the teaching of African/Jewish/LGBTQ/Fill in the Blank-American studies isn't taught in the manner you'd want it to be? Anecdotally; In the way back times, during my college days, I took a number of courses that fell into both African-American and Jewish-American Studies. I went to a somewhat liberal-leaning college (I did not go there because it was liberal-leaning, just happened to be). I Majored in history and thought these particular courses would be interesting and helpful towards the history degree. It was only afterwards that I found out these courses also counted towards either certificate programs or Minors in Jewish and African-American studies. In my own experience it wasn't an us vs them theme, but analysis of those respective groups' experiences, history, and who's who. Much to my surprise I ended up two Hebrew language classes away from acquiring an accidental Jewish Studies Minor. I certainly didn't feel indoctrinated and didn't come off about being victims. But, again, this is my own experience, so I suppose that's why I took a little umbrage to some of the points you made.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Mr. Paine, your apology isn't necessary, but sincerely accepted. As far as my M.O., it would have to be the search for truth and justice. As you're well aware, I do not see or find these qualities within the modern GOP, the conservative base, and especially within this current administration.

I've told you before that we see the world from entirely different baselines, mostly because I cannot respect your pro-corporate viewpoints. I'll meet your challenge, and again will continue to call you down on your corporate state advocacy every chance I get.

With all sincerity, I hope you're not caught up in the latest wave of layoffs at AT&T. I suspect late 2018, and into 2019, will be the timeframe the economy tanks and millions will be affected like the thousands at your company and Comcast.

Good luck to us all. We'll need it.

Dave Dubya said...

Mr. Paine,

I can understand your defensive anger might be unfortunately clouding the points of agreement I indicated. I also apparently wasted words showing how my values overlapped with conservative values. Those words went unnoticed as well.

I have stated that SOME of the folks within the BLM through their violence, rioting,

BLM members are not a gang of racist criminals. They led dozens of peaceful demonstrations that the Right ignore. You have openly stated “BLM is a racist hate group”. And then you accuse Obama of aggravating racism by meeting with the founders of the group.

Whenever the topic of racism arises, Obama and BLM are your first targets of blame. I’m just noting the fact.

You are not a racist, but you have demonstrated little understanding of their message and who the BLM members are. They are not accountable, nor to be blamed, for the actions of a handful of criminals among thousands of marchers. Marchers, NOT members.

Maybe this logic will resonate:

Criminals have marched in the US military, but that does not make members of US military a criminal organization. Is this a real point or not?

Perhaps it will send you off on another tangent. I can only try to reason with you.

I’m not making a whiny ass demand here, but I will note the fact you once again took Obama’s words out of context. You misrepresented his words by failing to give him the modicum of respect by quoting the whole sentence.

"If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election -- then I think it's going to be harder. And that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2nd."

If this makes you angry it is your problem. (What’s that you said about snowflakes?) He was talking about voting and election opponents, nothing like the loathsome “Lock her up!” craze from the Party of Trump and ideology of hate and ignorance.

Here is the explanation you would deny Obama.

“Now, I did also say if you're going to punish somebody, punish your enemies, and I probably should have used the word, "opponents" instead of enemies. Now the Republicans are saying that I'm calling them enemies. What I'm saying is you're an opponent of this particular provision, comprehensive immigration reform, which is something very different."

And now the sex offender in the White House demands books be banned and his political opponent be jailed! But Obama is the real villain in a Black and White world, after all.

So go ahead. Refuse to engage in my reasonable suggestion that the Right has its own identity politics, but that is your choice, not my bullshit.

Refuse to acknowledge how your prejudice framed boos for a chairman’s behavior as “Boos for inclusion of God”. You have no way of knowing, or capability of admitting, the more likely disagreement was on Jerusalem, not God. This is what you are insultingly projecting as “demonizing and bullshitting”.

I suspect you are angry because I see through you. I see the reality beyond your blame game and unquestioned beliefs. I challenge the beliefs you cannot challenge.

He attacks me, and then whines that I will likely respond by "attacking the messenger" as if he were the arbiter and bringer of truth. This is the bullshitter. response.

Messenger duly attacked. Factual rebuttal of my statements? Nowhere to be found. No matter how much you and your sidekick rant on about me personally, this is always the bottom line.

;-)

Dave Dubya said...

One final point.

"This is also the reason my list of false beliefs is ignored as well, for only liberals are wrong." ~ Dubya

Last time... I am not going to kowtow to every whiny-ass demand you insist upon for me, Dave.


I think you’re upset. This was not a demand at all. It is as clear as Obama’s birth certificate that conservatives have a long list of false beliefs. Why be angry at me and not at those who promulgate those false beliefs?

Maybe all my statements feel like demands because they demand recognition of facts, and an examination of conscience.

There is nothing here needing your response. If you can show evidence of my errors, please enlighten me.

This is not an attack. Blaming liberals is very much attacking liberals. And unlike you, I am not blaming anyone for anything without evidence.

Please relax, and continue ignoring my words. They can’t be reasonable or factual anyway. Just ignore what you don’t believe. Just relax, knowing you are right and I am wrong. Believe the worst about me, about liberals, about anyone else you do not understand. That is enough. Just believe. That is always enough.

Until it’s time for more blame, that is. ;-)

Majormajor said...

"It does not matter that I have answered Dave's bullying and incessant demands in the past."

So have I Mr.Paine and that is why I refuse to waste my time trying reason and debate him on issues. He is everything you have said. I no longer take anything he says seriously. That's why I quote him to show how laughable his posts are.
A liberal will work with a conservative to reach a solution, they understand how to compromise. Leftist like jG and Dave have no desire to reach a solution.

Woody,
Remind me not to back you again when you cross Dave or jG's leftist standards. Enjoy your radical leftist "friends" treatment of you.

woodenman1954 said...

JG, you used to be very laid back and mellow but your new style is more aggressive, any reason for that? Only a big man can humble himself, excelent!

woodenman1954 said...

Chuck, all those constant ten year old taunts were getting silly. By the way do you still volunteer at your local USO?

Majormajor said...

Woody, (that name is not meant to be a insult, if it offends, let me know)

I've moved from the St. Louis area where I volunteered for the USO, to an area that is not near an airport that has a USO. So no, I no longer volunteer for the USO.

T. Paine said...

TB3, I am am sorry that I wasn't more clear in my writing and its intentions on this topic. It is indeed more unwieldy then what I anticipated. Ironically I edited out about 25% of my original post to try to make it more concise and readable. I guess it didn't accomplish what I had desired.

Next, while I have not yet read Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" myself, it is in my large queue to do so. He is an interesting man, to say the least.

As for your personal experiences regarding your college education and the identity politics involved, I can only say that I hope most other institutions of higher learning would follow that example, sir. I don't know if your experience was because you took these courses "way back" and they hadn't succumbed to the PC tripe yet, or if they simply were focused on teaching the subjects without the political aspects of identity politics involved. It sounds like you had a fascinating course of study, sir! In your history major, was there any particular area/time frame on which you specifically focused?

T. Paine said...

JG, I sincerely appreciate your good wishes regarding my employment situation. Thank you. That said, I am not affected to my knowledge and indeed have not seen any notices or corporate emails explaining any forthcoming layoffs for my group or any others to date. That is not to say that they aren't occurring; however, they usually notify everyone company-wide when such events do occur.

T. Paine said...

Majormajor, thank you for your volunteering at the USO in the past. It was one organization I always appreciated when I was in the service.

woodenman1954 said...

Mr. Paine, When I read the article about the layoffs and commented about it I did not know you could be affected by it until I reread your post about the bonus. I would have not been so cavalier about any possible misfortune to you just to make a political point.

T. Paine said...

No worries, James. I know you are not the kind to hold such malice, and indeed I don't think anyone that comments on my site would wish for anyone else's livelihood to be negatively impacted. I certainly didn't take offense by it. As always I appreciate your decency, my friend.

woodenman1954 said...

This Friday Trump makes a very momentous decision weather to kill the Iran nuclear deal which is a forgone conclusion. With all the sanctions back in place Iran said they will no incentive to hold their end of the bargain up any more and will go full bore to create a nuclear bomb.

Then the only option to stop them is military force which suites the MIC and Israel perfectly. Both of them have been foaming at the mouth for two decades to demolish Iran. This promises to be much harder than the war with Iraq. I do not think Russia and China will stand around as we destroy yet another country for fun and profit.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48556.htm

Jefferson's Guardian said...

James, this falls into the neocon's plans perfectly. Conflict with Iran may start out as a proxy-war between the two once-superpowers, but arguably it will not stay that way. Adding China to the mix and all bets are off.

As I've said, Trump's election was a condition needed for civil war; Clinton's most assuredly would have given us nuclear war. Looks like we'll get a "two-fer" with Trump after all.

This is America's "glowing" future.

Dave Dubya said...

More Angry White Con-servative Identity Politics that gets ignored by our conservative friends.

This Republican Racist and pardoned criminal is running for Senate:

Washington (CNN)Controversial former Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Wednesday called former President Barack Obama's birth certificate a "phony document" in an interview on CNN.

"No doubt about it, we have the evidence, I'm not going to go into all the details, yeah, it's a phony document," Arpaio said on "Cuomo Primetime."


But COLLEGE'S are brainwashing people? LOL

On only the Cult of con-servatism would project that.

Has anyone else noticed those fools like Trump and his fellow "stable genius" types who condemn the Iran deal have NO idea how to replace it?

WAR is their only answer.

Dave Dubya said...

Speaking of things conservatives MUST IGNORE:

We have some more far Right Identity politics to expose. This gets no mention because identity politics is blamed only on educational institutions and liberals.

Race is the foundation of identity. I would say that that’s kind of a more touchy-feely version of this, but it’s maybe the most important one. We understand ourselves as coming from some place. We understand ourselves as being part of a bigger story. We’re part of Europe. We’re part of this big European story . . . this big narrative of who we are. We aren’t just individuals. We aren’t just some raceless, genderless soul or brain existing in the world, interacting with others. No, we have roots.”

— Richard Spencer interview, “The Future of the Alt-Right Under Trump,” Feb. 1, 2017

White Nationalism, racism, and authoritarianism have always been the most dangerous and destructive of identity politics. This was forged by Hitler’s “Master Race” identity politics. The Nazis were defeated, but their racism, nationalism and authoritarianism will always be around.

Racists like Sheriff Joe, Trump, and their ilk are nothing BUT far Right identity politics. Still educators, liberals and minorities get the blame for some reason.

Why is that?

IOKIYAR?

Majormajor said...

Golly Dave, your post sounds like something from a troll.

Majormajor said...

James

Why is military force the only option for stopping Iran's Nuke bomb program?
Do we know if the current unconstitutional agreement has worked in stopping their nuke program?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Chuck, Dave was completely on topic: Identity Politics. He was merely pointing out what conservatives excel in.

Or didn't you notice? LOL

Jefferson's Guardian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TB3 said...

Looks like Dave's channeling his inner-Majormajor.

"Do we know if the current unconstitutional agreement has worked in stopping their nuke program?"

Yes, MM.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-un

woodenman1954 said...

Chuck, first off our constitution has nothing to do with international agreements. Second the nuclear agreement was signed by six countries and is working perfectly. There is no way to get a better deal because Russia already took away a great part of the infrastructure to create nuclear bombs along with all the uranium stocks. International nuclear inspection teams regularly go where ever they want to make sure Iran is not cheating or braking the agreement.

The purpose of Trump to decertify the nuclear agreement is to satisfy Israel so hostilities can break out and both of us can destroy Iran. Israel has too much influence on the US. When India and Pakistan became nuclear powers nobody said a word about it because Israel did not care.

If we attack Iran the effects will be catastrophic.

Majormajor said...

James,

Treaty's have to be approved by ....?

Agreements are just that, they can be changed by the next President or an act of Congress.

Obama should have made the agreement a treaty.

"The purpose of Trump to decertify the nuclear agreement is to satisfy Israel so hostilities can break out and both of us can destroy Iran. Israel has too much influence on the US. When India and Pakistan became nuclear powers nobody said a word about it because Israel did not care."

1. Satisfy Israel so a war can break out? Me thinks you're drinking the leftist kool-aid.

2. "When India and Pakistan became nuclear powers nobody said a word about it because Israel did not care."
Wrong!

A. Trump was not President
B. Not speaking doesn't make it right
C. But someone did speak out.

INDIA SETS 3 NUCLEAR BLASTS, DEFYING A WORLDWIDE BAN; TESTS BRING A SHARP OUTCRY NYT MAY 12, 1998

U.S. imposes sanctions on India - May 13, 1998 Under President Clinton

"Two Middle Eastern powers, Israel and Iran, have been quick to voice concern about the possible proliferation of nuclear arms in the wake of Pakistan's nuclear tests on Thursday. The problem, it was said, was not the fact that Pakistan was a Muslim country, but the fear that the nuclear tests "might encourage Baghdad and Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons". BBC


What proof do have of that the agreement has worked?

Majormajor said...

Dave was simply pointing out what HE thinks Conservatives do.

T. Paine said...

James, do you really think that Iran is not already going as full bore as possible to build nuclear weapons right this minute, my friend? Do you not think that with renewed U.S. sanctions and continued vigorous public support for the popular uprising going on in this theocratic terrorist "republic" that we don't have our best opportunity to date to overthrow this brutal regime via its own people? (and without going to war!)

Their nuclear program from the start is perfectly sized for weapons development and much too modest for meaningful energy generation - coupled with their relentless research and development of medium and long range ballistic missiles, which is already in violation of the agreement from a technical aspect, I don't see how any knowledgeable person could be duped by their dissembling. (As a point of interest, I was originally trained in the Navy as nuclear engineer and reactor operator, so I have some knowledge of that which I speak here.)

As Majormajor intimated, President Obama did an end-run around congress by not submitting this as a treaty subject to their ratification, but rather as a legacy-building "agreement" for him. In doing so, he ignored our allies in the region, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, who warned that this would potentially lead to a regional arms race to counterbalance Iran's hegemonic ascendancy. Further, Obama ignored the terrorist history of Iran since their revolution, including proxy and Qods force attacks on Americans and our allies. And as per Politico last week, Obama ignored his own DEA and indeed obstructed them in stopping Hezbollah from running drugs into America to fund their nefarious activities. All of this was done with disregard to our national security and for the aggrandizement of his own ego, which may only be surpassed by President Trump's.

http://francona.blogspot.com/2016/03/irans-ballistic-missile-program-more.html

Scrapping this agreement, reinstating sanctions based on Iran's violations already, and supporting the popular uprising is the best way to topple this terrorist regime, sir.

T. Paine said...

TB3, I respectfully disagree, sir. From your referenced article:

"Tehran has been adamant in its insistence it will not allow military inspections. The government spokesman Mohammad Bagher Nobakht this week dismissed the campaign for military inspections as 'a dream'. Haley responded in a statement by saying: if 'inspections of Iranian military sites are ‘merely a dream’, then Iranian compliance ... is also a dream.' The IAEA director, Yukiya Amano, told the Associated Press that the agency has access to all locations 'without making distinctions between military and civilian locations'. There is a mechanism in the JCPOA for the IAEA to request access to sensitive sites and even to compel such access with the approval of five of the eight signatories to the agreement, who are represented on a joint commission. AEA officials have said they will inspect Iranian military sites if there is credible information that there is suspicious activity under way there, but they are reluctant to conduct a 'fishing expedition' without clear intelligence."

So in other words, inspectors aren't going to request access to military sites , which the government said they cannot access regardless, unless they have "clear intelligence". Do you suppose the world's leading state sponsor of terror might hide some of their R&D in just such locations accordingly, sir? Further, why was this not ABSOLUTELY clear between Iran and all parties that every place was open to inspections from the get to? This nation is floating on oil, and yet they want a nuclear program... for power generation? Does that seem to strain the bonds of credibility to become an international pariah in the past for the sake of energy?

Last, now that sanctions were lifted with the deal and Russia, China, and the EU all have trade with Iran once again, do you think they will be looking very hard to find reason to nullify this agreement and thus hamstring themselves?

When looking at objective facts, history, and simple logic, the contortions people go through to justify this "agreement" as a good deal that keeps the peace and prevents Iran from eventually obtaining nukes is absolutely without merit in my humble opinion, sir.

T. Paine said...

"The purpose of Trump to decertify the nuclear agreement is to satisfy Israel so hostilities can break out and both of us can destroy Iran... If we attack Iran the effects will be catastrophic." ~ Woodenman

Truly? Why would Israel have that much leverage on us going to war against Iran, short of an attack or imminent attack by Iran on them or our national interests? I can think of no upside for us deciding to do so, short of our own or Israel's imminent security. There is no upside for us entering another war, especially with Iran. It very well could be catastrophic for all parties involved.

I truly think that if we decertify, reimpose sanctions, and publicly support the uprising there, we can topple the regime without ever needing to go to war. Indeed, I think we were close before and then President Obama infused billions of dollars back into their economy and removed sanctions thereby breathing life back into a corrupt and evil regime whose days were already numbered.

woodenman1954 said...

The U.S. record with regime change has not been stellar, Iraq,Syria, Libya, Ukraine,and Iran all black marks against the U.S. I think we have lost the moral authority to dictate how a foreign sovereign country operates. Iran in particular has experienced the full malice of the U.S. since 1953.

The actions of the U.S. caused Iran to be the country it is today and it will no longer totally bend to our will. Sooner or later we will have to accept North Korea as a nuclear power and eventually the same goes for Iran.

"Scrapping this agreement, reinstating sanctions based on Iran's violations already, and supporting the popular uprising is the best way to topple this terrorist regime, sir".

We will be they only ones breaking a signed agreement so our sanctions will not work when all the other countries will support Iran. We will not succeed with all stick and no carrot so Trump woulds be smart to leave every thing as it is.

I know Hezbollah is labeled a terrorist group that is supported by Iran but what has Iran done directly to be called a terrorist country?

Israel will be disscused in another comment.


Majormajor said...

"what has Iran done directly to be called a terrorist country?"


"Relationships with terrorist and militant groups are integral to Iran’s foreign policy. The clerical regime in Tehran sponsors a range of organizations in the Middle East and maintains the capacity to conduct international terrorism outside the region. Iran’s terrorism and destabilization efforts are primarily a threat to U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East: Tehran’s activities worsen civil wars and contribute to the destabilization of the region. Iran does not appear to be actively targeting the U.S. homeland with terrorism, but its capacity remains latent. Tehran uses its ability to strike U.S. assets outside war zones to deter the United States and as a contingency should the United States attack Iran."
Iran’s Support for Terrorist Groups
By Daniel Byman

Iran remains top terror sponsor as global attacks decline
By Nicole Gaouette, CNN

"The U.S. State Department considers Iran the world’s "most active state sponsor of terrorism." U.S. officials say Iran provides funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups--most notably in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon--posing a security concern to the international community. Iran’s declarations that it has successfully enriched uranium and developed new missile technology have heightened alarm in the United States and other countries that the Islamic Republic might transfer weapons of mass destruction to militants or armed groups. Iran’s leaders, who deny allegations they support terrorism (DerSpiegel), assert their rights under an international treaty to pursue nuclear power and insist their efforts are for peaceful purposes. But the international community remains unconvinced, imposing a growing list of sanctions against Tehran. Financial pressure has been applied by the UN Security Council, the European Union, international financial bodies, and a number of individual countries, including the United States."
www.cfr.org

TB3 said...

You're arguing without fact and just with how you feel about Iran.

"Further, why was this not ABSOLUTELY clear between Iran and all parties that every place was open to inspections from the get to?"

In the quoted section you quoted back at me, the IAEA said:

"The IAEA director, Yukiya Amano, told the Associated Press that the agency has access to all locations 'without making distinctions between military and civilian locations'."

Of course Tehran is going to be insistent to not allow military inspections. These are words meant to show that they are defending their sovereignty.

"This nation is floating on oil, and yet they want a nuclear program... for power generation?"

Have you actually thought about this question, T.Paine? Oil is easy to store, stockpile and sell on the open market all across the planet. If you have an abundance of a sellable commodity and you have alternatives for power that don't involve oil, wouldn't you want to sell the oil to maximize the money you import? The more money they bring into their coffers in trade is less money they have to tax out of their own populace. This talking point has never made any sense to me. The United States of America is awash in Natural Gas and Oil right now. The US is exporting a record amount of oil for the same reason. We've got energy production alternatives, so we can sell this stuff on the open market.

"Last, now that sanctions were lifted with the deal and Russia, China, and the EU all have trade with Iran once again, do you think they will be looking very hard to find reason to nullify this agreement and thus hamstring themselves?"

I do not even know why you ask this question. Why is the United States looking very hard to nullify this agreement that Iran, as far as the IAEA is concerned, has been compliant?

"When looking at objective facts, history, and simple logic, the contortions people go through to justify this "agreement" as a good deal that keeps the peace and prevents Iran from eventually obtaining nukes is absolutely without merit in my humble opinion, sir."

You're not demonstrating your point with objective fact, history or logic. T.Paine. You're right. This all opinion.

T. Paine said...

Woodenman, I absolutely agree that America's record with regime change typically creates at least as many problems as we solve in recent decades. That said, with Iran being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, I don't see much downside to reapplying sanctions, supporting morally and perhaps with limited means covertly the uprising against the regime, and then just letting the Iranian people themselves decide how to govern themselves. I have seen from multiple accounts how the Iranian people are encouraged by Trump's public support and desiring more than just his supportive words.. I don't think we should become involved militarily at all, unless we or our vital national interests are attacked by the mullahs in power.

I think we could learn to live with the fact that North Korea is a nuclear power IF they weren't lobbing missiles over the sea of Japan and belligerently threatening South Korea, Japan, and even our territory of Guam. If they would leave themselves to their own devices, the world would sadly let them abuse and persecute their own citizens. When they do otherwise, then it becomes a national security issue.

And yes, I realize that Trump's juvenile rhetoric has only escalated the problem, but the fact remains, these are issues we have dealt with over several past administrations. It has gotten and only will get worse, unless we find a viable solution short of nuclear war.

As for Iran, they have already violated the agreement with their ballistic missile testing and R&D, thus nullifying the agreement. Further, it is incredibly likely that prohibited nuclear research and development continues in some of their military locations that they claim are off-limits to U.N. inspections, despite the impotent U.N.'s claims to the contrary. Regardless, the U.N. will not push for inspections of those locations and thus upset the current status quo. Iran knows this and thus will continue their plans accordingly.

Lastly, Iran's revolutionary guard Qods force has been directly responsible for supplying, training, and funding terrorist factions in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and everywhere around Israel. Why we have not declared the truth of the matter that their involvement in such operations is an act of war against the U.S. due to the killing of U.S. servicemen directly tied to their actions is completely beyond me.

T. Paine said...

TB3, I quoted that section back to you so that you would know that I read and understood it. That said, it doesn't change the fact that Iran has stated that inspectors will NOT be able to access military locations for inspections. Further, as I told James, the corrupt and impotent U.N. will not push to inspect at those facilities short of having actionable "intelligence". This means, as Iran well knows, that covert R&D can continue unabated behind military fences. Surely you don't believe the mullahs are trustworthy when they still call us the "Great Satan". Do you think they feel obliged to honor a deal with Satan, as they see it?

As for your assessment of Iran not wanting to use its oil instead of selling it, I respectfully disagree. By insisting on nuclear "power" instead of oil for their nation's energy, they invited crippling sanctions from the world and decimated their economy, while becoming an international pariah on the world stage. Surely that is far too high of a price to pay for developing nuclear "energy" when they already have an abundant source available. Indeed, by insisting on moving forward with their nuclear "energy" program, they have greatly harmed their economy far more than they would have by simply using some of their own oil for energy generation.

As for the IAEA, of course they are going to fudge the lines and not declare Iran out of compliance with this asinine agreement unless the violation is so devastatingly blatant. They too have great interest in maintaining the status quo. It does nothing to negate the fact that Iran is already out of compliance with their ballistic missile program as per the agreement, sir.

Dave Dubya said...

As for the IAEA, of course they are going to fudge the lines and not declare Iran out of compliance ...the fact that Iran is already out of compliance with their ballistic missile program as per the agreement, sir.

As an expert on the IAEA, and one certain that Saddam was in cahoots with al_Qaeda and had NUKULAR aluminum tubes, and as an expert on the agreement and terms of the Iran agreement, please, cite your source for this information.

Once again opinion is stated as fact.


Some boring facts:


FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
SUBJECT: Is Iran the “World’s Leading Sponsor of Terrorism?”

We are concerned by recent strident and stark public statements from key members of your Administration that paint Iran in very alarmist terms. The average American, without the benefit of history, could easily be persuaded that Iran poses an imminent threat and that there is no alternative for us but military conflict.

...One of the recurring big bipartisan lies being pushed on the public with the enthusiastic help of a largely pliant media is that Iran is the prime sponsor of terrorism in the world today.
In the recent presentation of your administration’s National Security Strategy for 2018, the point is made that:

“Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, has taken advantage of instability to expand its influence through partners and proxies, weapon proliferation, and funding. . . . Iran continues to perpetuate the cycle of violence in the region, causing grievous harm to civilian populations.”


...Thirteen of the 14 Muslim Groups identified by the U.S. intelligence community as actively hostile to the US are Sunni, not Shia, and are not supported by Iran:

– ISIS (Sunni)
– The Al-Nusra Front (Sunni)
– Al-Qa’ida Central (Sunni)
– Al-Qa’ida in Magheb (Sunni)
– Al-Qa’ida in Arabian Peninsula (Sunni)
– Boku Haram (Sunni)
– Al-Shabbab (Sunni)
– Khorassan Group (Sunni)
– Society of the Muslim Brothers (Sunni)
– Sayyaf Group in the Philippines (Sunni)
– Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan (Sunni)
– Lashgar i Taiba (Sunni)
– Jemaa Islamiya (Sunni)
– Houthis (Shia)

The last major terrorist attack causing casualties that is linked to Iran was the July 2012 bombing of a bus with Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. That departure from Iran’s more recent policy on terrorism was retaliation for what Iran perceived to be Israel’s role in assassinating five Iranian scientists involved with Iran’s Nuclear program, between January 2010 and January 2012 (the dates and names of those attacked are appended).

One can easily imagine the outrage and lust for revenge that would sweep the U.S., if Americans believed a foreign country sent operatives into the United States who in turn murdered engineers and scientists working on sensitive U.S. defense projects.


Why would you suppose General Mattis supports the deal?

Perhaps his sources aren't as accurate as your unmentioned secret source.

"The sky is green because liberals say it's blue". I suppose this is the extent of the reasoning.

This get tiring.

Beliefs trump fact. Dogma trumps reason. Con-servatism trumps reality. "Honest Don" Trump is making America great.

We get it already.

TB3 said...

"That said, it doesn't change the fact that Iran has stated that inspectors will NOT be able to access military locations for inspections."

And the United States has stated it is going to build a wall along our Southern Border and make our neighbor to the south pay for it. Saying something doesn't make it so. Iran says they Military bases off off-limits, but the IAEA hasn't reported being denied access and claims that they have access to all sites.

"the corrupt and impotent U.N. will not push to inspect at those facilities short of having actionable "intelligence"."

1) You should probably dispense with the adjectives and just call it the U.N., the adjectives do not help your argument.

2) Per the agreement, yes, the U.N will push to inspect facilities when they have determined there is a need to.

"Do you think they feel obliged to honor a deal with Satan, as they see it?"

Yes. With Satan and the UK, Germany, France, Russia, and China. I still do not see why they wouldn't want normalized relations.

"I respectfully disagree. By insisting on nuclear "power" instead of oil for their nation's energy, they invited crippling sanctions from the world and decimated their economy, while becoming an international pariah on the world stage."

Right. And this deal was to remove the quotes around the word "power" and "energy" and to no longer be a pariah. Other countries use Nuclear for energy and power, despite having other means of energy production. *cough* America *cough*

"As for the IAEA, of course they are going to fudge the lines and not declare Iran out of compliance with this asinine agreement unless the violation is so devastatingly blatant. They too have great interest in maintaining the status quo. It does nothing to negate the fact that Iran is already out of compliance with their ballistic missile program as per the agreement, sir."

Why is this an "of course", TP? For what reason would they have "great interest" in maintaining the status quo? There is no fact regarding Iran's complaince except the fact that they are in compliance. We can't prove they aren't. The IAEA, the group tasked with determining compliance, says they are at 1/3 the maximum allowed stockpile level. They're not even flirting with the limit they agreed to. Dig your heels in, TP. That and your own truth are the only things supplying support to your argument.

T. Paine said...

TB3, don't make the mistake of equating the lies and exaggerated promises that an American politician says to get elected with what the Iranian mullahs say. Their's is the very definition of a theocracy, and they rule their nation accordingly. I provide this link and excerpt from noted Middle East expert, CNN military analyst, and retired intelligence officer Lt Col Rick Francona.

http://francona.blogspot.com/2018/01/is-there-fix-to-flawed-iran-nuclear-deal.html

"According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the accord calls for inspections of any suspect facility, but the United Nations' watchdog organization has not asked for access. Their reason? Iran will say no and possibly give the United States a reason to withdraw...

Of the three issues - inspections, sunset clauses, and ballistic missiles - I think the only one that has a chance of success is expanded inspections, the 'anytime, anywhere' mantra promised by President Barack Obama and Secretary Kerry (that was the first thing Kerry capitulated on). Without the ability to inspect all of Iran's suspect facilities, it is impossible for the IAEA to accurately certify that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA. Put me in the category of those who believe that Iran maintains a nuclear weapons research and development program. As long as their military facilities remain off limits, we cannot rely on the JCPOA." ~ Col. Francona

Next, you are probably correct about my adjectives regarding the U.N. not helping my argument. They are simply redundant, and any reasonable person already realizes the truth of the corruption and incompetence of this platform for third world dictators and anti-Israel regimes.

"Per the agreement, yes, the U.N will push to inspect facilities when they have determined there is a need to." ~ TB3

See Colonel Francona's estimation and my concurring opinion on this matter above.

T. Paine said...

"Yes. With Satan and the UK, Germany, France, Russia, and China. I still do not see why they wouldn't want normalized relations." ~ TB3

Sir, I truly mean this with all respect, but you are thinking with a western mindset here and not like that of a ruling Shiia' mullah with absolute power governing the nation of Iran. They truly believe in their faith that tells them of the coming of their 12th imam once again - their Mahdi or messiah - to unite all of the world under the banner of Islam and the rule by Sharia law. To usher in the coming of their Mahdi, they must destroy Israel. These are the same people that are willing to send people to "martyr" themselves as homicide bombers. Their interest in the JCPOA is not about being a member of the world's peaceful nations. It is a means to an end. It is about having those crippling sanctions removed so that they can continue to overtly and covertly build the necessary tools to destroy the Jewish nation and usher in the end of time with the Muslim messiah. And it doesn't matter if you or I don't believe this to be true. The fact is that they do, sir. "Normalized relations" to the Iranian mullahs running the theocratic state of Iran is only a means to an end to further the conquest of Shiia' Islam via the return of their 12th imam and the subjugation or destruction of all those that will not convert accordingly.

"Why is this an 'of course', TP? For what reason would they have 'great interest' in maintaining the status quo? There is no fact regarding Iran's complaince except the fact that they are in compliance. We can't prove they aren't. The IAEA, the group tasked with determining compliance, says they are at 1/3 the maximum allowed stockpile level. They're not even flirting with the limit they agreed to." ~ TB3

They aren't "flirting with the limit they agreed to" as far as the inspectors know, because they haven't accessed all military sites. The U.N. wants to maintain the agreement for multiple reasons. Altruistically, some members may even believe this is a credible way to maintain peace and prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power for the time being. Cynically and frankly, more realistically, it is about money and greed. Iran wants to buy European, Russian, and Chinese goods and services, which they could not do under the previous sanctions. If the deal were to collapse, and the U.S. restore its own sanctions on Iran, it is possible the our supposed friends might be compelled to either trade with the United States or with Iran. As such, the U.N. security council (Other than America of course) has a vested financial motivation to ensure this deal remains in place and that sanctions are not restored on Iran. Many experts, and I agree with them, think this means that inspectors will not push for inspections of military locations and may turn blind eyes to "minor infractions" of the deal in order to keep Iran "in compliance" and thus not allow the United States to renege on the agreement.

Dave Dubya said...

I understand Mr. Paine’s dedication and devotion to Israel. His emotional bond with the Israeli far Right may cloud this rational perspective:

James Fallows points out this reality based assessment in the Atlantic:

“But the strategic logic of the concern is more puzzling. No one doubts (although no officials can publicly say) that Israel has a large nuclear-retaliatory force, including on submarines. Thus any leader in Iran knows that an attack on Israel would with 100-percent certainty mean devastation for Iran as well . So to think that Iran might actually try to “wipe Israel off the map” requires assuming either that its leadership is literally suicidal, or that, like the Nazis in Germany, Iranian leaders are so bent on destruction that nothing other than brute force can hold them back.

The problem with the suicidal martyr-state assumption is that never in its 36-plus years in office has the Iranian leadership taken a move that rashly jeopardized its own well-being or hold on power. Iran’s leadership has been theocratic but not psychopathic. A serious problem for the United States, Israel, and others: yes. A Reich-like monster-state: no. Under its Islamic leaders, Iran has been at war once—a war that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq started when it invaded Iran in 1980. So the “existential” argument would be stronger were there any evidence of Iran’s leaders ever taking suicidal risks.”


https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/israel-opposition-iran-deal/401129/


The distinction is “theocratic but not psychopathic”. There is no evidence Iran’s leaders are suicidal. On the other hand, the US instilled a brutal dictator in Iran, carelessly shot down an Iranian airliner, and aided Saddam in his chemical weapons warfare and killing of uncounted thousands of Iranians.

THAT is what psychopathic looks like. Of course this is just my humble opinion. I’m old-fashioned in thinking the number of dead human beings count, for some reason.

While some capitalists may have “a vested financial motivation to ensure this deal remains in place”, the inspectors, the UN, the signatories, and the world have a greater vested interest in preventing Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Why is this point ignored?

I don’t expect Mr. Paine to acknowledge such facts, but they must be asserted nonetheless. I also don’t expect an explanation of why ending the agreement with Iran would do more to limit their nuclear programs, nor do I expect an explanation of why another war would be better for reducing terrorism and stabilizing the Middle East. Bush’s war in Iraq spawned ISIS. Just imagine what fresh hell Trump’s war with Iran would spawn. Iraq is Iran’s friend now, so we’d get a twofer. Iraq War 3 and Iran War 1 are bound to make America safe AND great, amirite?

It seems to boil down to “Obama was for it, therefore it is bad”. For Obama is an “arrogant buffoon”. Mattis is also for the agreement, but this fact will continue to be dismissed as well. How is Mattis wrong? Never mind.

Obama haters, Trump, Bibi, some colonel, and Mr. Paine believe they know better. Thus their hate, fears and opinions must guide our international agreements.

Dave Dubya said...

Wait a minute. Obama the Marxist was for a deal that greedy capitalists love?

Now I'm confused again.

woodenman1954 said...

Dave, I am really liking your new debating style, less anger with a cool factual delivery.

We have been at war with Iran since 1953 and for most of those years they have been innocent victims. Between the Sha and the Iraq war more than a million of them. I believe the plane the Navy shot down had 230 people on it to add to the total.

I would like to see the U.S. take away the 7 billion yearly we give to Egypt and Israel and give it to Iran to make up for all the misery we caused them. That would change the whole Middle East faster than sanctions any day! The U.S. is a one trick pony, threats, sanctions and wholesale killing is all we do.

North and South Korea sat down without the U.S. present and will compete under one flag at the Olympics and are actually talking about Reunification. If that happens we would have to pull 30,000 troops out of Korea and that would piss off the MIC for sure.

Bojin said...

Now society has a big divide among identity politics like it says in the picture, there are a lot of times that we are now divided by groups.