And in this instance, her false equivalence of Assad's very real war crimes with whatever it is that the Obama administration thinks it's doing in Syria, even going so far as to insinuate that we've somehow killed twice as many of Assad's people as he has, and further that we're just itching to do it "more efficiently," -- well, that's just pure and unadulterated bullcrap, not to mention patently offensive.

Look, our country is hardly "the bright and shining city on the hill" that some people like to say it is, and U.S. policies which are immoral and / or counterproductive to the general health and well being of our planet and its inhabitants can and should rightly be criticized.

But neither is America the devil incarnate, as lentinel regularly loves to imply. That sort of toxic far-left flamethrowing is entirely antithetical to the cause of liberalism, because conservatives then seize upon it as free license to publicly and collectively impugn our own patriotism.

And given the present state of our media, which already lists heavily to starboard as it is, that's not a public fight we're likely going to win. I dearly wish it were otherwise, but it's not. We're never going to get any mulligans from a conservative media that loves to paint entire communities of "The Others" with the same broad brush. Why make it easy for them to do so with such thoughtlessly cavalier rhetoric?

It would be different were lentinel to support such incendiary comments on merit, but she's not. I called her out on the baseless substance of her remarks. She responded by getting personal and calling names -- as now are you, apparently.

And when your response to a substantive and even vigorous challenge from someone regarding the merit of your own comments is to call that person names and make it personal, then you've lost the argument.

That goes for her, as well as for you, who apparently couldn't even be bothered to address the original issue before insulting me.

I've read the report. Have you, with any real comprehension as to its actual contents? As of March 2015, approximately 210,000 civilians in those three countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars. That report further considers other deaths from collateral causes, such as malnutrition, disease and epidemic resulting from a deterioration and breakdown of social order and infrastructure as a result of the conflicts.

There's a considerable amount of blame and fault to be portioned out here, and the United States is certainly due a big share. In Iraq, the blame for the carnage can fairly be said to be ours exclusively, given that our invasion destabilized the country.

But we weren't talking about Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, were we? Rather, we were talking about the conflict in Syria, which like those other countries had its own serious internal issues simmering below the surface, which long predate our involvement.

But since you've now moved the goalposts and want to discuss Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, fine. It is a fact that most of the people who've been killed in those countries have lost their lives not at our hands, but rather at those of their fellow countrymen. Civil and internecine conflicts are often the most brutal and cruel of all wars. To the extent that we are to blame, it's that we facilitated the escalation and intensification of these existing conflicts upon our arrival.

But don't mislead yourself or others into thinking that these conflicts in the Middle East and South Asia somehow never existed until we arrived, because they most certainly did.

In recent history, over one million people lost their lives in the 1980-88 war between Iraq and Iran. There was a two-decade-long civil war in Lebanon. The current conflict in Afghanistan is directly rooted in the 1979 Soviet invasion. Israel and Egypt fought four wars between 1948 and 1972. Pakistan has fought three major wars with India since both attained independence from Britain in 1948. The Kurds have been fighting the Turks, Arabs and Persians for autonomy since the days of the Ottoman Empire.

The fighting in the region has never ceased. There are only periodic lulls. That's why it was so foolish on our part to get directly involved there in the first place. Now that we are, we're finding it none too easy to subsequently disengage.

Where I take issue with you directly is your singular determination to always lay the entirety of fault upon the doorstep of your own country, and in this particular instance without any real due consideration for the complexity of the situation in the Middle East and South Asia, or the region's own terribly violent history. Glib does not account for nuance.

And in that regard, you are merely the mirror image of the wingbats on the far right, who would otherwise hold the U.S. entirely blameless for the present situation. Our country's interests are never well served, whenever we allow such complex and difficult matters to be defined for us in starkly black-and-white terms by fringe elements at either or both ends of the political spectrum.

You're right - I am being practical to the point of negativity. I was right there saying Obama should have tried harder to make single payer happen when he had the chance, but since then maybe I have seen how much harder it was than I thought at the time.  Something did make me less optimistic. This is not the country I though it was. I don't think it has that much to do with the expenses - it has to do with what people see as their 'freedom' being taken away - their freedom to be robbed blind by the health care industrial complex, but they see it as their freedom nonetheless.  Is Sanders is the one that can make the argument that people respond to? We'll see.  I'm already converted, so he does not have to persuade me. I talk about this regularly to friends, coworkers, etc - I'm not talking the ideas down.  You're right - personally I do not connect with him so I extrapolate and doubt his ability to 'sell' the ideas to others.

Then maybe the Democratic Party (none / 0) (#129)
by jbindc on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 10:34:55 AM MDT

Is too moderate for you and you need to align with a different party?

The downside is now I have to re-register as a Dem to vote for caucus for Sanders and vote for him in the primary.

Sounds familiar.

Actually... it is right on.

Given that Sanders has not indicated that his plan would look different from HR 676, I think it's reasonable for one to use that as a basis for understanding what Sanders' plan is.

Corporate media outlets often pretend to be "objective" and "neutral." People who work in the media nevertheless understand that this is an impossible task -- and that publications that present themselves as such do so only as a cynical marketing tactic to attract larger audiences (after all, Fox News' slogan is "Fair and Balanced").

Sometimes, however, media outlets throw the charade out the window altogether and expose whose side they are really on.

The New York Times did just this today, in its coverage of the third Democratic presidential debate, which was held last night in New Hampshire.

The first article on the front page of the Times this morning reads "Clinton's Focus In 3rd Debate Is G.O.P. Field." This is the headline for the newspaper's coverage of the debate. It does not have a separate article about Bernie Sanders' role in the debate, yet alone about fellow candidate Martin O'Malley.

"The NYT writes up the debate as the Hillary Clinton show," wrote journalist and the Nation contributing editor Doug Henwood, author of the hard-hitting new book "My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency."

Link

Now, it is the NYT, which has also been known to work against Clinton using questionable sourcing, so take its coverage of this debate for whatever you think it's worth.

I rather think that there was a limited audience for the debate - why, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, why?  Why, Debbie, do you think it's good to restrict the number of debates, hide the few that you're allowing on nights and at times when no one is going to make an effort to watch, and do this while Republicans are getting prime-time, weeknight debates, and record ratings?

But, I digress.  I think it's possible that the burgeoning fascism and rising poll numbers of one Donald Trump have actually begun to scare the media just a little bit.  I think their usual desire for drama and chaos may be cooling just a degree or two having realized that no one and nothing has slowed Trump.

I watched George Stephanopolous this morning, on the phone with Trump.  George was completely unable to control the conversation: Trump steamrolled him with lies and bombast. You can't sway him or deter him even when you have and know the facts.  

If you think there is anything the media would love more than an actual contested dem primary I believe you are mistaken.

They would love be free from even the hint that there would be any effort to break up their conglomerates.

They would love to be assured that all social benefits go to the moneyed classes.

I get the impression Alternet is more of a Sanders supporter and like a few posters here think Sanders is getting the short end of the stick.

My personal view is that what the MSM tries to pass off as debates are nothing of the kind.  I was one of the better debaters on my high school debate team and had a debate scholarship as an  undergrad.  One debate still stands out in my mind.  It was the preliminary rounds Dade County Junior Varsity Debate Champion ship and the only debate my partner and I lost.  Both of us were shocked at the loss till our coach pointed out the judge in the debate had the same last name as one of the opposing debaters; turns out it was the mother of one of the team members.

None of the online polls ever seem to be the same as a scientific poll. But apparently pointing that out seems to create some sort of rage.