Reason Morning Links: White House Reporters Bemoan Lack of Access, Leon Panetta Scolds a Leaky CIA, Humanities Professors Swear They Are Necessary for National Security

|

The latest from Reason.tv: "Remy: Do the TSA Pokey Pokey"

NEXT: Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The chief of the White House Press Corps spills her guts about how anti-media the president is.

    Unrequited love is the worst. Or so I’m told.

    1. Honestly, I barely pay attention to Obama’s ramblings. “Big Speech” comes up… nothing happens… another “Big Speech”… nothing happens. Rinse, lather, repeat.

      1. I haven’t listened to a Presidential speech since shortly after 9/11. It’s better to read them if necessary.

    2. but they’ll still endorse him. and probably cite transparency as reason.

      1. He’s so dreamy…

    3. Of course, if Obama were smart, he’d kiss their asses–just in case some of them might grow lukewarm. After all, without the media making a point of not calling out his inexperience and questionable aptitude for the office, he wouldn’t even have gotten nominated.

      This comment paid for by the Committee to Elect Hillary Rodham-Clinton.

      1. In 16 months, we will hear Obama decry the lack of Presidential experience his opponent has, and speak of the requirement of presidential experience to be taken seriously for the job.

        He will then repeat the exercise in 2016 after the 2-term limit is abolished because it’s racist.

  2. If Pres. Obama does not receive authorization from Congress today, he must stop the war in Libya.

    Suuuuuuuuuure.

    1. War? What war? It’s merely a kinetic military action!

    2. But the “Kinetic Action” by NATO can continue.

      Its all about how you define things.

    3. The last line in that CNN piece is strong. The hope and change president tears up the war powers act and tosses it in the trash can.

    4. Has congress authorized it yet? Or do they wait till after lunch for that sort of thing?

  3. Leon Panetta begs his CIA employees to stop leaking things.

    Maybe he should just throw them in a concrete cell for 23 hours a day and periodically strip them naked in front of a camera.

    1. and waterboard the rats until they lie

      1. What do you have against rats?

    2. I’ve noticed the number of CIA leaks has dropped dramatically with the election of Obama. Suddenly there are fewer “damaging to the president” whistle-blowers. Or else the media just isn’t picking up on the stories.

      1. It might have something to do with the Obama Administration pressing more Espionage Act cases against “damaging to the government” whistle-blowers than all previous Administrations combined.

        Some parts of the media have picked up on that, but the broader media doesn’t really care.

        1. Again, with the thin-skinned demeanor, the overreaction against even indifferent press, and the paranoia of leaks, this guy looks like Nixon more and more each day. I hope for another Watergate, but I can’t see a special prosecutor ever being appointed against this guy.

  4. polls show that when asked what they want to be when they grow up children say drug traffickers

    But we’re winning the War on Drugs, right?

  5. Where the fuck are our Golden Links?

    1. ^^Homo^^

      NTTAWWT

      1. Sir, *some* of us appreciate JLT’s degenerate, pathological obsession with the Golden Girls. So please take your hate elsewhere.

  6. Panelists at the briefing, which was sponsored by the National Humanities Alliance and the Association of American Universities, explained how research projects funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities helped foster a better understanding of foreign cultures — particularly in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran — and how that knowledge has assisted U.S. military, aid, and diplomatic efforts in those countries.

    What’s to understand? They want our blue jeans. Conquer them and wipe out their cultures until they are indistinguishable from us. It’s got to be cheaper than Humanities funding.

    1. Maybe they should pipe in Golden Girls reruns to these countries?

      1. I’m told they’re already gay so I don’t think that will have the desired effect.

    2. that’s right baby! blow-up angkor wat & replace it w micky dees & a non-union wallmart.

      1. Why blow it up? Put a McD’s and a gift shop in, along with air conditioning, and they’ll finally get some revenue out of that old stone heap.

      2. Like the Angkor Wat is unionized now?

    3. What I don’t get is why a website called “Inside Higher Ed” would have a story about humanities professors. What does one have to do with the other?

      1. Your thinking about http://www.insideMISTERed.com and that’s kinky.

        1. Why is ^^this^^ not a real website?

          1. the question should be why did I click the link? 😉

          2. the question should be why did I click the link? 😉

            1. Are you sure?

              1. “What I tell you three times is true.”

          3. the question should be why did I click the link? 😉

      2. They merged with Inside Lower Ed last year.

        1. Well I guess it makes sense now. I’m still 100% sure about the Ed part, though.

          1. Ed stands for edacious.

            1. That explains the discomfort I’ve been feeling.

              1. I assumed the site “Inside Higher Ed” was all about exploring the ravings of a host on MSNBC.

    4. Perhaps a cessation of the incineration of civilians with errant missiles might help our diplomatic efforts more than cultural understanding. A good deal cheaper too.

      1. Let me be clear: when I spoke of us air raiding villages and killing civilians, I didn’t mean I intended to stop it once I was elected. In fact, I felt we weren’t doing enough of it.

    5. Bullshit. How many of those lefty professors getting NEH grants would ever work for DOD?

      1. Probably all of them, for a $2k a year raise.

        1. Only if there was a Dem in White House. Then patriotism is cool.

          1. So you ascribe to them actual principles, even if twisted?

      2. Better question: how many demanded/supported the effort to keep ROTC off their campuses?

    6. The humanities professors are led by Jim Leach, chairman of the NEH and former U.S. representative from Iowa. Leach, whose surname is nothing if not descriptive, was the author of legislation outlawing internet gambling. This legislation passed towards the end of the 109th Congress, less than a month before Rep. Leach was defeated in his election less than a month later.

      I heard that former Rep. Jim Leach has an extremely slow-moving, indescribably fatal, and invariably lethal form of cancer.

      Unfortunately I can’t remember if that last sentence is true or just part of some sort of pleasant dream…

      1. Fucking ‘preview’ function, how does it work?

      2. “fatal” = “painful”

  7. If Pres. Obama does not receive authorization from Congress today, he must stop the war in Libya.

    Ladies and gentlemen, your real Friday Funny!

  8. CIA Director Leon Panetta sent a message Wednesday to CIA employees cautioning that there should be no more leaks about the bin Laden raid and how it was conducted.

    No one cares about the raid anymore, Leon. Killing bin Laden is what was. Unless your people can leak who’s going to win Idol, yawn.

    1. What raid?

    2. Yeah, that orgasm was short-lived. I kinda wish they’d release the photos ‘cuz my dick has been limp since May 4.

      1. Bob Dole can help you out with that.

  9. There’s so much to be outraged by in this morning’s ABA Journal online.

    The sad thing is how many commenters, who supposedly are lawyers, lack any evident understanding of the Constitution or its history.

    Exhibit A.

      1. I ditched the ABA a long, long time ago.

        1. Same here. Sometime around 1990. I think it had to do with their asinine and gratuitous pro-gun control stance.

          1. It must be dominated by the plaintiffs’ bar to be as political as it is. Distasteful, even for lawyers.

      2. For what it’s worth, Orin Kerr makes a decent case that the Supreme Court ruling has been somewhat exaggerated. They didn’t actually say that the raid in question was definitely lawful; what they said was that when you remove police-caused behavior from exigent circumstances, you can only remove police-caused behavior that was unlawful, not police-caused behavior that was merely mistaken.

        1. That’s still pretty “bad”, in layman’s terms.

        2. Has Orin Kerr ever found a police argument in a 4th Amendment case that he didn’t agree with? Seriously, he’s one of the biggest cheerleaders for police overreach on Volokh.

          This is not to say that he isn’t right this time, however.

          1. Strip Search Sammy certainly hasn’t.

    1. Exhibit C.

      There’s more but that should be enough for now.

  10. Here is one for Episiarch and MNG. Apparently Ted Roll can’t get published. Now Ted Roll is a talentless douche. If he wasn’t getting published because the media had figured this out, I would find this funny. But that is not what is happening. He is not getting published because apparently he actually believes what he says and is being as hard on Obama as he was on Bush. According to the editors who are rejecting him,

    I am familiar with and enjoy your cartoons. However the readers of our site would not be comfortable with your (admittedly on point) criticism of Obama.”

    At this point, how are these publications anything but state run propaganda organs?

    ? “Don’t be such a hater on O and we could use your stuff. Can’t you focus more on the GOP?”

    ? “Our first African-American president deserves a chance to clean up Bush’s mess without being attacked by us.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/n…..z1MtnNunu5

    1. “Cartoonists and columnists who promote government policy are an embarrassment.”

      Can’t argue with that.

    2. Well, I’m not one to put much stock in stories that come from “pajamas.com” or “newsbusters” or such, but assuming for the sake of argument this is not near total bs, I would guess private businesses can not run features that anger their readership, that makes sense to me actually. It doesn’t say much about their integrity though.

      1. It must be BS MNG. You have told me on numerous occasions there is no media bias. So Rall should be in just as much demand today as he was in 2007.

      2. You’re also not one to click through and read stories, either, considering that the NewsBusters story consists of a link to Ted Rall’s own column (heavily block quoted in the NB article) with some small editorial comments.

        But yes, you’re right, it’s certainly not just the journalists who are blindly pro-Obama, it’s their readers too. The polls consistently show that Democrats really don’t care about that civil liberties stuff so long as a Democrat is in charge, no matter what he does. OTOH, they do care about government spending.

        1. OMG, the right wing blog took the story from the aggrieved guy’s own blog, well shucks, it must be true with that kind of reporting work!

          1. Is there any reason to think that it is not true other than it dispels one of your most cherished myths? And why would Rall be lying? It is not like he has changed over the years. Yet, somehow no one wants to publish him now that he is criticizing Obama rather than Bush.

            1. It is a crazy day when I am agreeing with anything Ted Rall writes, but he makes a great deal of sense in his linked article. As already noted, it is funny watching the Left eat its own. I don’t remember the MSM being this much in the tank for Clinton his first two years, which was my previous high water mark for fawning coverage.

          2. You certainly must admit that Ted Rall is actually saying it.

            And technically, it’s not from Ted Rall’s blog, it’s from Ted Rall’s syndicated column (syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate/uClick) as printed on Yahoo News.

            Not that you’d now, because you can’t be bothered to click on links or read sources.

            Of course, not that it would matter, since when you do read sources you can’t be bothered to read them properly either.

            Close-minded as always, MNG.

      3. I like how your first instinct is denial rather than reading the articles.

    3. So long as these are privately-owned, non-subsidized newspapers, I don’t see what the problem is. If you don’t like it, start your own newspaper and hire Roll.

      I have a feeling that people who still read newspapers (other than WSJ) skew left compared to the general population, so the attitudes of the potential employers are completely understandable.

      1. I am not saying it should be illegal. But it takes the mask off of the media. And further, it is a little disturbing to think that a large section of our media is functioning like a state run media.

        Just because it is legal doesn’t make it right or desirable.

    4. At this point, how are these publications anything but state run propaganda organs?

      Based on the quotes, they appear to more Democratic Party organs. They are apparently anti-state when the republicans are in charge.

    5. From his Yahoo! column:

      In a nation where mainstream political discourse was redefined between Dick Cheney on the right and libertarian Bill Maher on the not-as-right, there wasn’t any room in the paper for a left-of-center cartoonist.

      Har-de-fucking-har, Rall. You’re so nuanced and enlightened. Next thing you’ll be telling us is that libertarianism is a centrist ideology.

      1. I laughed too, but at the time Maher was self-describing as a libertarian. He disavows the label nowadays.

  11. Knock-knock. Oops, but we’re gonna fuck you up anyway.

    Serpico twin powers activate. Two outstanding 25 year cops drop bombshell case on the OC.

    Good morning from California.

  12. If Pres. Obama does not receive authorization from Congress today, he must stop the war in Libya.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. now I need a bigger monitor.

      1. Dual monitors, windows extended.

        1. Bastard. I swear, it’s like I have to cut off my left nut to get a 2nd monitor here. And IT policy sez I can’t bring one from home either. Grumble grumble.

    2. Shit, I’m on 1024×768 because my work computer blows.

      1. Well, don’t take it out on us.

  13. For the day before the rapture, things sure are boring. Plus, that dudes math has way too much bible and not enough calculus to be believed. I’m sure God uses forumulas with complex numbers, imaginary time and such. There’s no way the allmighty would plan doomsday using but simple arithmetic.

    Maybe the lack of mathematic elegance describes the level of sophistication it takes to be “saved”. Well, hellfire or willfull stupidity?

    Give me hellfire.

    1. On Saturday, God takes the complex conjugate.

    2. When Doppler discovered his Effect in the late 1800s, most physicists dismissed it as insignificant because it didn’t involve calculus.

      1. thanks professor Tulpa! but it does involve algebra. Doomsday doesn’t even amount to a function, just arithmetic twattery.

  14. “The chief of the White House Press Corps spills her guts about how anti-media the president is.”

    But he doesn’t mean to beat us. He is just under a lot stress you know with that God damned Bush in the White House.

  15. Declaring war is like a parking in 1 hour zone. All he needs to do is move the wheels, and time starts over

  16. Cheers to Obama for coming out and stating support for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement based on the 1967 borders. This is in compliance with a long held UN resolution (one of the few we let sneak past our embarrasing pro-Israel vetoes) and complies with the long held (since Locke I think) idea that land gained via force (even via a ‘defensive war’ if you want to call the 1967 war that for Israel) is ill gotten gains. But of course Obama is not going to stand up to the rabid pro-Israel lobby (the GOP contenders are already foaming at the mouth trying to outdo themselves in outrage).

    But super jeers to Obama who is about to take the biggest dump on the War Powers Act in history. The War Powers Act is pretty weak tea (not weak enough for conservatives to have long reviled it), but it is at least some acknowledgement of a brake on the executive in warmongering. Obama is going where no Prez has gone before iirc in violating this, all this from a Nobel Peace Prize winner and supposed Peace Candidate.

    1. Don’t worry MNG, as soon as there is a Republican in the White House the media will remember there is such a thing as the War Powers Act. It is just a temporary suspension of the Rule of Law.

      1. Are you complaining that your side doesn’t get to start illegal wars?

      2. I’m sure we’ll be inundated with breahtless MSM articles about Barack and the imperial presidency any day now. Yep. Any day now…

    2. And the only value the Golan Hights offer to anyone is a commanding view of and invasion route into Israel. Only a complete ignoramus or someone who wants to see the destruction of Israel would insist on the return of the Golan Heights. Obama might be either or both.

      1. So because some land has a strategic value one is entitled to take it via force and keep it.

        Wonderful!

        1. Without the Heights Israel can’t have a secure country. I guess in your view their job is to die so Western liberals can feel better. And when was the last time Obama insisted that China return Tibet or England Gibraltar? I guess only Jews have to give up strategic pieces of land to their enemies.

          1. John, do you endorse the general principle that nations can take land via force from other nations and hold it forever if they think the land has strategic value?

            Or is it a special case with Israel?

            1. You’re the one making Israel a special case. There are tons of irredentist claims and disputes out there.

              Irrendentism is one of the leading causes of war; why are you supporting it?

              1. Oh boy, the conservative blog-o-sphere’s word of the week is going to be “irredentist” boys and girls.

                Can you point out where I am making Israel a special case, not knowing my position on other claims? Or is this just the all-purpose shovel-ready comeback the right wing is going to be using this week?

                1. Can you point out where I am making Israel a special case, not knowing my position on other claims?

                  I don’t have to; it’s true by default. It’s a logical impossibility to uphold all irredentist claims that arise from land taken in war, because there are an unbelievable number of overlapping claims.

                  Therefore, logically, if you endorse some irredentist claim, you must be a hypocrite.

                  I asked you in the other post to please formulate some kind of way to judge such claims. I’m very confident that you will never come up with such a formula.

                  But that’s okay, you’re a liberal, you don’t believe in bright line formulas, you believe in trusting your gut.

                  1. Therefore, logically, if you endorse some irredentist claim, you must be a hypocrite.

                    That’s absurd, as there can be differences in the cases (how recent they are, the needs and desires of the aggrieved, etc).

                    With your affinity for conservative SCOTUS justices perhaps you’ve read Rehnquist when he speaks of how the government taking one step to combat an evil without taking all steps does not a hypocrite the government make.

                2. Can you point out where I am making Israel a special case, not knowing my position on other claims?

                  So you do think that the US should give back the land they stole from the Mexicans.

                3. Can you point out where I am making Israel a special case, not knowing my position on other claims? Or is this just the all-purpose shovel-ready comeback the right wing is going to be using this week?

                  What’s your position on the Kuril Islands?

                  The Greater and Lesser Tunbs?

                  Depsang Plains?

                  Puntland?

                  Kashmir?

            2. “do you endorse the general principle that nations can take land via force from other nations and hold it forever if they think the land has strategic value?”

              I do. It’s called The History of the World, asscunt.

              1. And how delicious that Locke already foresaw such a stupid argument and answered it hundreds of years ago in the quote I provided!

                1. Except no. Locke is distinguishing between the right of a conquerer to be the new government of an area, which he admits is absolute, and the right of the conquerer to the possessions of the people who live there, which he says he has no right to.

                  You are confusing people with the country that they are or would like to be a part of.

                  1. So you are against the settlements?

                2. Appealing to Authority Troll is Appealing to Authority!

            3. Israel is a special case in that it won’t have a defensible border without the Heights and is surrounded by enemies. Telling them to give back the Heights is telling them that they shouldn’t have a country. It is that simple.

              1. So any country that feels threatened may seize other nation’s land that has strategic value? Is that the general principle?

                1. When the other nation uses that land to launch an invasion intent on destroying you and you win the war and take the land. Yeah, you can keep it so they can’t use that land to invade you again.

                  Why do you hate Isreal so much? I can see giving back the West Bank and even Jerusalem. But there is no reason to give back the Heights. There is nothing there. It is nothing but a platform from which Arabs can kill Jews. By saying Israel should give it back you are saying Israelis should die and the Jewish state should die in the name of some abstract and ignored principal. And further if the roles were reversed and Syria had taken land from Israel, there is no way you or anyone else would be arguing they should give it back. Rules only apply to Jews and they especially seem to apply when their application results in Jews dying.

                  1. The only reason to give back the GH is they took it via force, and it is wrong to take land by force, even land gained by force in a just war, for the reasons Locke explains below. It’s like saying if someone robs you you can take over their house and wife and kids.

                    1. No dipshit, is someone robs you, you can fight back and take their gun and their ability to harm you. The Golan Heights are a knife at the throat of Israel. They have a right to keep the knife away from the guy who tried to rob them.

                      But I am wasting my time. You are liberal so it is not like you will ever agree with Israel doing anything but ceasing to exist. The day that happens, I am sure you will think they did the right thing.

                    2. The GH are not guns, it is land that had people living on it, like the WB and Gaza.

                    3. Again MNG.

                      1. Do you admit that Israel does not have defensible borders without the GH?

                      2. If you do, is your contention that they should give up defensible borders?

                      How can you expect Isreal to give up its security? What other country in the world has ever had such an expectation placed on it? And if not, why Israel other than the fact that the world hates Jews and wants them dead?

                    4. “Do you admit that Israel does not have defensible borders without the GH?”

                      No, I don’t. Isreal has military might several times that of its neibhors, this is not 1850 where posession of a high ground means you win. But even if it were crucial to defense a nation does not have the right to take via force land because it considers it crucial to its defense. For a final time, do you endorse that as a general policy around the world?

                    5. “For a final time, do you endorse that as a general policy around the world?”

                      When someone invades another country using land as a base and intends to destroy that country and never gives up on that intention and loses the war, the defensive country has a right to keep that land. Shouldn’t Syria have to pay a price for launching an aggressive war? Why don’t you care about any crimes but those of Israel? Do you just think Arabs are animals and not worthy being held to any moral standards.

                    6. How can you expect Isreal to give up its security? What other country in the world has ever had such an expectation placed on it?

                      Czechoslovakia in 1938.

                    7. and it is wrong to take land by force, even land gained by force in a just war, for the reasons Locke explains below.

                      Locke explains that it is wrong to take land from people by force. He admits that it is fine to become the new government of land by force.

                      After a just war, giving some person’s land to connected friends of yours is wrong in a way that becoming the new government is not. Even there, though, there are enough claims and counterclaims on every plot of land.

                    8. ” He admits that it is fine to become the new government of land by force.”

                      Where?

                      He says those that fought against the winner can be under the winner’s control, but not the rest of the populace and their estates. How does that equate to control of the area?

                2. Hey, minge. You ever find those citations you were going to get yesterday? I kept going back to the story, but you disappeared after being asked to provide links, oh, about a half-dozen times.

                  Hey guys. If you’re tired of arguing with minge, just ask him to provide a citation. There’s no more sure-fire way to get him to leave, since his arguments are almost solely based on strawmen and goalpost-moving techniques.

                  1. sloopy asked for a citation that the government acted in ways that created and fostered sterotypes of blacks as lazy and immoral. He needs proof for example of how the government blocked black career paths and business opportunties and arrested/imprisoned blacks in a discriminatory way for ages. This is the mountain of stupid he climbed.

                    1. To work I go, I think actually Locke’s argument says everything I could on the Israel subject. Of course now sloopy can run in and demand a citation for things like whether underwear goes on the inside of his pants or not and say “where is minge with that cite?”

                    2. Not quite correct, as usual.
                      Your quote: ” For centuries the government enforced barriers and stereotypes of blacks as lazy, shiftless, shady, immoral folks.”

                      I just asked you to support that with a fact or two. Every other post you wrote in response was a goalpost-moving exercise or a flat-out dodging of the question.

                      Go fuck yourself, you disingenuous twat.

                    3. There’s a big difference in government enforced barriers and stereotypes and created and fostered stereotypes.

                      One has the force of law behind it, which you claimed. One does not, which is where you are trying to move the goalposts to. Surprise, surprise. Minge is arguing in bad faith again.

                      Go to work, and good riddance, dickhole.

            4. John, do you endorse the general principle that nations can take land via force from other nations and hold it forever if they think the land has strategic value?

              Shitm I guess New England has to go back to the British. And California New Mexico and Arizone are going back to Mexico. And Puerto Rico is going back to Spain. And Normandy is going back to the British, too. And…etc. etc.

          2. China should defintely return Tibet, I think that is a very big deal.

            1. When has Obama ever demanded Tibet’s return? Citation please?

              1. Who cares what Obama has said on the issue? I say China needs to pull out.1111111111111111111111111111120

                1. Because Obama demands Israel give up its security and pull out of the GH but doesn’t demand the same of China in Tibet. Is he a hypocrite or an anti-Semite. You tell me.

                  1. He is dealing with the fact that China is a much bigger player than Israel. Our government’s dealings with China re: Tawain and Tibet have been shameful for decades. That doesn’t clear Israel.

                    1. So it is okay to bully small countries just not large ones. And how many small countries in Africa have such land? Again, show me where the rules that are being applied to Israel are ever applied to any other country or admit this is about hatred of Israel and not any over arching principal. And further, explain why the principal is so important that Israelis are expected to die for it. I think Israelis dying is a bad thing. You seem to like the idea or at least be unbothered by it.

                  2. Is he a hypocrite or an anti-Semite.

                    I guess identity politics and argumentum ad outrageam isn’t limited to the Left.

                    By the way, the Syrians are Semites too.

              2. Last night after praying for Hope and Change I was about to go to bed and suddenly the TV flickered on. Obama was giving a speech except this time he was looking right at me!

                He said he would free the slaves, legalize marijuana, reunify Korea, restore Tibet, and then forgive all school loans. The last thing I can remember was feeling warm and tingly all over.

                I woke up this morning in a sticky mess. I think maybe Obama was trying to contact me telepathically? I’m sure he really wants to do these things, it’s just petty smallminded politicians keep getting in the way. Really.

            2. OK, so that only leaves a few other hundred overlapping claims to sort through. Do you have opinions on the ones that aren’t just hot trendy claims?

              Do you feel that the willingness of irredentists to go to war over their claims bolsters their moral case? (It certainly does seem to give them a practical edge.)

              1. As neither I or Obama has called for going to war over these claims this is a red herring.

                In Ireland one of these claims was largely solved with a cessation of conflict. That is the goal.

          3. Good God, you sound like Ben Stein on CBS shrieking about Iran taking over the world.

            1. That was for John.

            2. Fuck you. The Golan Heights are the Little Round Top of Israel. I can’t blame them for not giving them back. The US never would and neither would any other country in the world. So why should Israel?

              1. Fuck you back, Shrieky. Israel can currently bomb any ground incursion into fine steel dust. They have the best-trained air force in the world (or at least on par with ours) and better equipment than any of their rivals.

          4. Without the Heights Israel can’t have a secure country. I guess in your view their job is to die so Western liberals can feel better.

            This was exactly the “reasoning” that the Soviets gave for their domination of Eastern Europe during the Cold War. And frankly they had a lot more reason to be worried than the Israelis do, as the USSR’s enemies were just as militarily strong as they were.

            1. Except Israel didn’t take the Golan Heights until Syria actually initiated an attack on Israel. So really not quite the same.

              1. Pretty sure the USSR was invaded from Eastern Europe in 1940.

                1. By NATO? Really? I thought it was the Nazis, and the Nazis were no more by the time the USSR dominated eastern Europe? Huh, you learn something every day.

                  1. They were invaded by Germany, which has been part of NATO since 1955.

                2. Yes, I too remember the heroic Soviet defense against the aggressor states of Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland.

                3. It sickens me that people still try to excuse the Soviets like this in 2011.

                  1. Uh, I’m not excusing the Soviets. If I were it wouldn’t make sense to say that my opponent is using the same logic as they did.

        2. So, we are giving all these states back to the Indians, right?

          And it’s not as though the Golan Heights weren’t conquered from someone else, or else given randomly to people based on empires drawing lines on a map, just like all land throughout history.

          What is the exact date at which history started, from which all irredentist claims are considered valid, but those before which are considered invalid? Otherwise, what is your standard for judging irredentist claims, particularly when there are multiple competing ones for the same land?

          1. So, we are giving all these states back to the Indians, right?

            If you want to argue that it was morally correct to take Indian land via force, go ahead. If you think it was wrong, then why is Israel different?

            1. I don’t argue that it was morally correct to wage war in all cases; I argue that it’s not morally required to give land taken from war back. It’s furthermore impossible, and insisting on it only creates more war.

              In the case of the Golan Heights, Israel didn’t even start that war; they have more of a moral claim to that land than the US does to most of ours.

              1. There is the little matter of the US land grab being hundreds of years old and the Israeli one within two generations and the arguability of the assertion that Israel didn’t start the 1967 war, but more to the point you seem to accept that the land grab may have been immoral but the keeping it is not. WTF?

                1. There is the little matter of the US land grab being hundreds of years old and the Israeli one within two generations

                  Ah, so you’re narrowing down to the “history started in the 20th century” type argument, coming up with some kind of statute of limitations on war gains.

                  but more to the point you seem to accept that the land grab may have been immoral but the keeping it is not. WTF?

                  War is bad. That doesn’t mean you should support things that lead to more war because you’re upset about an old war.

                  1. Why not deal with the redressable wrongs when you seem to admit they are wrong? By dealing with them but not the more undredressable ones is that hypocrisy?

                    1. Because the only redressable wrongs people like you seem to care about are those involving Israel. You are so concerned about the people living in the GH, what about the hundreds of thousands of Jews from all over the middle east who were turned into refugees in 1948? I don’t hear you demanding their right of return.

                      There are disputed teritories all over the world. Yet, the GH and the West Bank is the only one you seem to get angry about. Now you are whipping out Locke and acting like it is some moral imperative when giving up the land just happens to imperil the existence of Israel? Bullshit.

                    2. Why not deal with the redressable wrongs when you seem to admit they are wrong?

                      Because war is a greater wrong. And truly aren’t the more “redressable wrongs” the disputes between two otherwise peaceful groups, not the ones between armed groups that commit terrorism and have gone to war and are likely to do so again? From my perspective, you’re focusing on the least “redressable” wrongs. The US Government owns tons of non-park Western land. It would be extremely easy to give more of it back to American Indians and increase the size of their reservations.

                      By dealing with them but not the more undredressable ones is that hypocrisy?

                      Pretty much every action that by its supporters is described as such is called hypocrisy by its detractors, and conversely pretty much every action called hypocrisy by its detractors is defended on those grounds by its supporters.

                      So yes, practically it does end up being the same thing as hypocrisy.

                    3. Israel has not right to self-defense, because…fuck the Joos!

          2. Golan Heights is very sparsely populated, so comparing it to the US is inappropriate.

            And let me turn your reductio on its head: tell me how long an invader has to hold on to territory before the people it took the land from have no right to get it back.

            I mean, Iraq had possession of Kuwait for 6 months in 1990-91 — does that mean the US had no right to demand it be given back to the Emir?

        3. Yes? That’s sort of what nation-states do, even if the gain is merely economic. When it’s a question of life and death for the state’s citizens, even more so. Are you historically illiterate or something?

          The whole concept of static, or even clearly defined, national borders is a modern phenomenon.

        4. When you get shelled from it, MNG, then yes, you are entitled to take it.

          Why Israel doesn’t just incorporate the Gaza Strip, the Golan, and West Bank within itself, give the Palestinians full Israeli citizenship and work on integrating them within the country, I have no idea. Oh, that’s right: doing that would mean that Jews would no longer be the majority within Israel.

        5. “So because some land has a strategic value one is entitled to take it via force and keep it.”

          If the nation holding that land is peacefuland bears no malice agaianst you, no, you are not entitled to take it. When the nation holding that land attacks you with the intent of destroying your nation, then yes, you are entitled to do so.

      2. Pretty sure the Golan Heights offers a good view and invasion route into Syria too.

        During the Cold War, would you have considered it legal for the USSR to occupy western Alaska, since it was pretty useless land other than for spying on them?

        1. Has Isreal ever used the GH to invade Syria? If the GH were that important, maybe Syria shouldn’t have started an aggressive war. I love how you guys think it is okay for Syria to launch an aggressive war and pay no price for it.

          1. So you basically agree with the position of the USSR on Eastern Europe circa 1947.

            1. There is a difference between taking one sliver of land and all of Eastern Europe. And yes, if there had been a sliver of land the size of GH that the Soviets kept after World War II to keep the Germans from invading again, they would have been justified.

      3. Here is the question I have. It is right for any country to take and keep any land by force? Or should the rights of self determination of the people who live there trump national defense?

    3. I actually think that the War Powers Act is unConstitutional, but not entirely for the same reasons. The War Powers Resolution actually cedes too much of Congress’s war-declaring powers to the President (violating the nondelegation doctrine) in the name of “recognizing reality,” but then goes too far in exercising a legislative veto over Presidential action once war is declared.

      It’s a perfect ignore the Constitution, make mistakes on both ends, refuse to stick to bright lines, compromise with “reality,” ignored when Our Guy is in the White House law that exemplifies the modern “liberal” mindset.

      1. Pretty much every liberal I’ve read has condemned him on this JT, but nice try!

        1. Yes, but as we’ve already shown, you don’t read a lot of people. You’re clearly not speaking for the vast majority of Democrats, including every single Democratic Senator– plus Socialist Bernie Sanders, who couldn’t be bothered to sign on to Sen. Paul’s letter.

          Your claim is as silly as claiming that “pretty much every conservative I’ve read” had condemned Bush’s civil liberties violations and spending excesses.

          1. Democrats don’t equal liberals JT.

            Plus, Paul was on tv last night and said he had an equally hard time with the GOPers in Congress, so there’s that.

            But everyone from Ackerman in the WP post I put up yesterday to several writers on the American Prospect and Progressive magazine have come out strong against Obama on this.

            1. And Ackerman and the rest of the Washington Post are going to vote against or stop shilling for Obama real soon. They don’t care MNG. If they did, they would do something besides tisk tisk.

            2. But everyone from Ackerman in the WP post I put up yesterday to several writers on the American Prospect and Progressive magazine have come out strong against Obama on this.

              Yes, and tons of conservatives in opinion magazines did come out against Bush’s spending when he was President, so I guess you’ll completely give up that line of attack, right?

              1. Did I ever use that line of attack?

                1. You never criticized Bush for spending MNG and never called Republicans hypocrites over it? Is that your final answer?

        2. But they’re going to vote for Obama again anyways, right?

    4. “…complies with the long held (since Locke I think) idea that land gained via force (even via a ‘defensive war’ if you want to call the 1967 war that for Israel) is ill gotten gains.”
      _
      im not sure that squares w manifest destiny

    5. JEWS!!!

      1. Ah, the anti-semitism charge, the first refuge of the Likudian scoundrel!

        Shorter Likudian: As nothing could justify our position, you are an anti-Semite!

        1. If the jackboots fit…

  17. The power a conqueror gets over those he overcomes in a just war, is perfectly despotical: he has an absolute power over the lives of those, who, by putting themselves in a state of war, have forfeited them; but he has not thereby a right and title to their possessions. This I doubt not, but at first sight will seem a strange doctrine, it being so quite contrary to the practice of the world; there being nothing more familiar in speaking of the dominion of countries, than to say such an one conquered it; as if conquest, without any more ado, conveyed a right of possession. But when we consider, that the practice of the strong and powerful, how universal soever it may be, is seldom the rule of right, however it be one part of the subjection of the conquered, not to argue against the conditions cut out to them by the conquering sword.

    But because the miscarriages of the father are no faults of the children, and they may be rational and peaceable, notwithstanding the brutishness and injustice of the father; the father, by his miscarriages and violence, can forfeit but his own life, but involves not his children in his guilt or destruction. His goods, which nature, that willeth the preservation of all mankind as much as is possible, hath made to belong to the children to keep them from perishing, do still continue to belong to his children: for supposing them not to have joined in the war, either thro’infancy, absence, or choice, they have done nothing to forfeit them: nor has the conqueror any right to take them away, by the bare title of having subdued him that by force attempted his destruction; though perhaps he may have some right to them, to repair the damages he has sustained by the war, and the defence of his own right; which how far it reaches to the possessions of the conquered, we shall see by and by. So that he that by conquest has a right over a man’s person to destroy him if he pleases, has not thereby a right over his estate to possess and enjoy it: for it is the brutal force the aggressor has used, that gives his adversary a right to take away his life, and destroy him if he pleases, as a noxious creature; but it is damage sustained that alone gives him title to another man’s goods: for though I may kill a thief that sets on me in the highway, yet I may not (which seems less) take away his money, and let him go: this would be robbery on my side. His force, and the state of war he put himself in, made him forfeit his life, but gave me no title to his goods. The right then of conquest extends only to the lives of those who joined in the war, not to their estates, but only in order to make reparation for the damages received, and the charges of the war, and that too with reservation of the right of the innocent wife and children.

    John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Ch. 16

    1. How dare they give those darkies 40 acres and a mule!

    2. Did you even read this, MNG?

      Locke is admitting that the conquerer has absolute power over the lives of people conquered in a just war, but not their possessions. In other words, the conquerer has the absolute right to be the new government of conquered territory, but not the right to seize the property of his new subjects.

      You’re confusing people with countries.

      1. He has absolute power over the lives of the people who FOUGHT againt him, no power over the people who fought against him’s children, wives, and land. No power to occupy in other words.

        1. “So that he that by conquest has a right over a man’s person to destroy him if he pleases, has not thereby a right over his estate to possess and enjoy it”

          He only gains a right over the persons of the other side, i.e., pows.

          1. Ah. So it’s cool to kill the guy waving the white flag, but uncool to take his stuff.

            1. His stuff becomes other people’s stuff (his wife, kids, etc), and yes it is uncool to take the other people’s stuff (and btw uncool to take the other people and rule them in, say, big refugee camps).

              1. (and btw uncool to take the other people and rule them in, say, big refugee camps)

                But perfectly cool to take the guys that were fighting against you– even informally, as in a thief setting upon you in the highway– and have “absolute power over [their] lives.”

                So therefore you simply cannot have any objection over our treatment of even irregulars taken in combat zones, so long as we don’t take their stuff or touch their families? Seems a bit extreme to me.

          2. So your interpretation of “right over a man’s person to destroy him if he pleases” is that there’s a moral right to kill POWs in a just war or treat them in any way?

            I suppose that lets us off the hook for waterboarding, then? Thanks, MNG!

          3. John Locke didn’t see the American Civil War. With mechanization and with “total war” as a doctrine war returned to it’s rapey-pillagey roots. The “civilized” war locke invisions died in the 19th century, but had been bleeding out for some time.

        2. MNG, why are you busy trying to make nonsense out of sense?

          But when we consider, that the practice of the strong and powerful, how universal soever it may be, is seldom the rule of right, however it be one part of the subjection of the conquered, not to argue against the conditions cut out to them by the conquering sword.

    3. This whole debate is pointless. What business is it of ours to pick what the solution is to the problems in the Middle East? Forcing either side to agree something we propose will just result in more violence, not less. They need their own solutions, not one imposed by us.

        1. Well we are part of the problem. Israel is able to treat roughly half of its citizens as prisoners, only because of our aid.
          If it wasn’t for us, they would have to change some of their policies.

          No my solution would be to end foriegn aid, and let them reach a deal, which they would.

  18. Saw this linked off of John’s Ted rall story. it’s a cartoon re: Gary Johnson from a N.M. paper

    http://cagle.com/working/110422/trever.jpg

    1. Nice.

      I don’t know if he’s got a real shot, now or in the future. But it would be foolish to underestimate the man.

    2. Why is Jimmy Carter carrying Gary Johnson’s gear?

  19. land gained via force (even via a ‘defensive war’ if you want to call the 1967 war that for Israel) is ill gotten gains.

    Well, I guess this means we need to give Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma back to Mexico, then.

    1. Spain, actually.

    2. Indeed, practically every country on earth was established at least in part by force of arms.

      1. Even Canada?

        1. Canada had rebellions in the midish 1800s, which I’m sure influenced the UK to allow more independent home rule there.

        2. Those native eskimo and inuit didn’t move on their own.

        3. What, you’re not familiar with Louis Riel and the M?tis, even aside from any First Nations treatment?

          And that’s separate from the whole Quebec thing.

        4. The results of the Seven Year’s War (French & Indian Wars) laid the foundation of today’s Canada. Just because Canada peacefully gained relative independence from Britain (the Queen of England is still the Canadian Head of State), does not its territorial claims are not based on past military actions.

    3. Shouldn’t we be giving the whole thing back to the British and French?

  20. Part of the briefing’s goal is to garner support for the NEH, which provides grants for humanities research and supports local programs through state humanities councils. Like many other federal agencies, the endowment is facing significant cuts as Congress grapples with decreasing federal spending.

    Die in a fire, you fucking spongers.

  21. Heavy-handed dealings with the press, limited access and strong efforts at message control are emerging as patterns in the Obama White House, journalists and media watchers say.

    And who says on-the-job training doesn’t work?

  22. John:

    Israel’s defensible borders are spelled N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-E-A-P-O-N-S.

    The Golan Heights really are irrelevant.

    But, frankly, I would not treat the Golan issue and the Palestinian issue as the same issue. In doing so, Obama is being foolish.

    I would in his place make it the US policy to seek to impose a peace settlement in which the Palestinians get the West Bank in its entirety, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, BUT they give up the right of return for all time.

    Syria’s territorial whining is not our concern. Fuck ’em, they lost it, let them get it back.

    1. In his place, I would demand that Israel either give all the Palestinians citizenship and voting rights in Israel like the Israeli Arabs, or else give up the land.

      While it would open up claims about Puerto Rico, the Puerto Ricans have continually voted for their current arrangements.

      1. Of course, in reality, Israel did offer that after the 1967 war, and most rejected it.

        1. This would be cool if they were to offer it. I mean to individuals not to “Palestinian Leaders”.
          And to quit with the “Arabs did this so we can do this to some other Arabs”.

    2. Fluffy,

      We could have had the deal you described years ago. Certainly in 1994 at Oslo. But the Palestinians won’t give up the right of return. Thus, it is hard to have a lot of sympathy for them. Land for peace means land for peace. At some point the Palestinians are going to have to give up on the dream of destroying Israel and take what they can get.

      Think of it from the Israeli perspective. If there is nothing you can give the Palestinians that will get them to give up the right of return and give you peace, why give them anything?

      1. This sounds about right to me.

        I once asked is Palestinian leadership really that stupid? My foreign policy wonk friends said “No, Israel is that greedy and evil”. So, as far as I can tell, assholes all around.

      2. Yep. That was exactly my point in my comment on Shikha Dalmia’s article. It’s impossible to make peace when one side doesn’t really want it. When the real goal of your enemy is your complete and utter destruction, how do you compromise?

        1. Most of the Arabs of the West Bank would gladly accept Israeli citizenship, if they got the same rights as the Israeli citizens living in the West bank (ie the settlers)

    3. “Israel’s defensible borders are spelled N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-E-A-P-O-N-S.

      The Golan Heights really are irrelevant.”

      Right, you are going to applaud Israel going nuclear at the slightest provocation from Syria?

  23. And as for the claims of irredentism on my part:

    I completely despise the concept of the ethnically-based nation state. It is a corrupt remnant of 19th century European nationalism and Wilsonian douchebaggery.

    We can completely dispense with the concept and solve the Palestine problem that way if you choose.

    But you won’t like THAT, either, because it would involve Israel assuming de jure control of the territories and making all inhabitants of Palestine citizens of one state. Then we don’t have to worry about petty issues like what state gets what territory, and all state-level land claims go away. Problem solved.

    1. If Jordan and Egypt had just granted citizenship to the Palistinian refugees in 1948 the way Israel did the Jewish refugees who got kicked out of the Arab countries, there would have never been a problem either. But the Arabs didn’t want to do that partially because the Palestinians had lived under British rule and had delusions that they had rights. And the Arab governments didn’t want their people getting any ideas. So they stuck them in camps and blamed the Jews.

    2. As I said above, this would be my preferred solution– but Israel has offered that deal before, including right after the 1967 war, and most Palestinians and Golan Heights residents refused it. The ones who accepted it are to my mind much better off, but it seems like a lot of people prefer being residents with some limited voting powers but not real citizens, or else prefer being refugees.

    3. You get some intriguing poll results among Arab Israelis, like:

      “In a 2006 patriotism survey,56% of Israeli Arabs were not proud of their citizenship and 73% were not ready to fight to defend the state, but 77% said that Israel was better than most other countries and 53% were proud of the country;’s welfare system. 82% said they would rather be a citizen of Israel than of any other country in the world.

      Sounds to me like it depends on how you ask the questions.

      1. And then there’s the poll showing that overwhelmingly, Israeli Arabs don’t want to be part of a Palestinian state based in the West Bank or Gaza.

        1. Go there and see if this surprises you at all.

      2. Is there any surprise about the cognitive dissonance? Israel has a decent government but living under it hurts their ethnic pride, but they are pragmatic enough to realize that their Arab choices for goverments are kleptcratic strongmen.

  24. So, I comment on the Economist occasionally, and the last few days the coverage of DSK has firmly shown me which side of the Atlantic is actually civilized. The Europeans on there are SHOCKED and DISGUSTED by both the American adversarial system and the idea of such things as perp walks and media coverage of trials. When one tries to point out that in the U.S., we believe that justice done behind closed doors is suspect, they go: “Why couldn’t you do the perp walk after ze trial?” Um… because that would mean the entire trial would be done in the dark and secrecy, and therefore the possibility of a miscarriage of justice increases?

    Seriously, I will give the U.S. system shit on any number of things, but Europe is just fucking crazy, and I would shudder to think at the condition on women in such societies.

  25. Fuckin’ a. John. MNG. John. MNG. John. MNG. John. MNG. John. MNG.

    It’s like the most nauseating tennis match in history.

    1. It’s like the most nauseating tennis match in history.

      No, I think it’s far worse than Bobby Riggs v. Billie Jean King. Or even that one where two different sexes played each other.

  26. Of some of the chatter here, did Reason do a thread about the Presidents recent mid east speech?

    That is all that the talk radio peoples have been talking about.

    Oh and no one cares about the Golan Heights, what to do about the Palestinians of the West Bank is the issue. Give them a state (as the president said, and as is State Dept policy), or give them the rights of an Israeli citizen?

  27. Of some of the chatter here, did Reason do a thread about the Presidents recent mid east speech?

    That is all that the talk radio peoples have been talking about.

    Oh and no one cares about the Golan Heights, what to do about the Palestinians of the West Bank is the issue. Give them a state (as the president said, and as is State Dept policy), or give them the rights of an Israeli citizen?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.