In regards to the Grammar Check:

I agree with the assessment of people enjoying finding fault in others written work, but I do not agree that it is because it's a "white person" thing. I am not white and I enjoy it.

The small tidbit also clearly shows the irony that no matter how well an individual picks up on others errors, he or she will most likely miss errors in his or her own works. Which is why I always have to bother several people to proofread for me.

P.S. Posting about a grammar post is one of the hardest things to do. If you make one mistake, then it might lead to a long chain of grammar correcting responses.

P.P.S. They should include grammar checks on forums and Myspace type pages that will not allow you to post if you exceed a certain number of errors.

The idea that Obama's personal history would matter more for US-Muslim relations than US policy in the Middle East is based on a very wrong and naive view of international relations. If states' behavior were based on religion, there wouldn't be the kind of alliances there are between most of the Muslim world and the US.

On a different note, Norm, since you posted the thing about Hillary being more liberal than Obama, how about posting this one in the interest of balance:

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

According to these figures, Clinton for most of her career, Clinton has not been very liberal by Senate standards, let alone Democratic standards. In 2007, Obama was far more liberal.

I don't agree with Obama's characterization of the situation in Isreal. Then again, that would go for just about any politician in this country. The idea that the situation in the West Bank and Gaza is first and foremost a national security question is absurd. It's a humanitarian one.

Also, From UN Security Counsel Resolution 242:

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...

Until Israel relinquishes the West Bank and Gaza Strip it stands in direct conflict with international law.

No people deserves to be occupied in their own homeland for 60 years.

BTW... I don't have a link because WIKILEAKS is down, but later on today, when the servers go back up, WIKILEAKS (and torrent Sites) has a Bishops Handbook from the LDS church.

Some interesting things about Mormons that you Atheists might be interested in:

Single Parents cannot take their children to heaven (be sealed to them) until they get married in the temple

When a wife dies, a man can remarry to another eternal wife. When a man dies, the Wife must get a Spiritual Divorce to be married again. Spiritual Polygamy?

Surrogate Motherhood is discouraged

Anyone who is a transsexual or has had a transsexual operation cannot go to Heaven (Celestial Kingdom), due to the fact that they cannot hold the Preisthood or go to the temple.

Bishops are not required (and are encouraged not to, due to legal matters) report sexual abuse to authorities. They can only encourage the perpitraitor to go to the authorities, and bishops are encouraged not to be called on in court cases to testify about the abuse.

The rest is pretty humdrum standard x-tian talk, but it is fascinating.

re: "President Apostate"

I'm sorry but it is now becoming obvious that some people will look for any petty non-issue as a reason not to vote for Obama.

Now, we're told in all seriousness, and in the NYTimes nonetheless, that Obama is a muslim apostate, and so will be shunned by Middle Eastern countries, thereby undermining the prospects of diplomacy with them.

This absurd on several levels. First, it is wildly wrong on the facts

Like the Jewish legal tradition, Islamic law is a conversation represented in dynamic and diverse schools of thought. Edward N. Luttwak speaks of an essentialized Islamic law that does not exist.

Nevertheless, there is no dispute among Muslims that Islam is not an ethnic affiliation, nor is it passed through the gene pool. A Muslim parent is morally responsible for raising his or her child within Islam; children, for their part, have no legal culpability. There is no legal obligation by a child to affiliate with the Muslim community.

Islam does not consider Barack Obama ever to have been part of the Muslim community. Apostasy has no relevance here.

Ingrid Mattson Hartford, May 12, 2008

The writer is president of the Islamic Society of North America, the largest umbrella Muslim group in the country.

Second, it's untenable speculation. Middle Eastern countries now meet with the United States regardless of CIA interventions in their countries, despite the fact of profound hostility over Israel, despite the fact that the current President has called Iran (who is allied with a number of countries in the region) part of the 'axis of evil', despite the fact that the U.S. launched a war of aggression on Iraq, and has let Afganistan fall into chaos. And -- just so we're absolutely clear on this -- we are supposed to be worried by the prospect that the Middle East will shoot itself in the foot and undermine all diplomac relations with the U.S. because the father of a prospective president left their faith 40 some years ago and became an atheist?

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying. But hey, maybe we can try Clinton's strategy, and just threaten to nuke a Middle Eastern country without provocation and to win political points. Surely that's less threatening than a president's father having left the Muslim faith decades ago.

the link associated with "facts" above got screwed up. It's here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/opinion/lweb14muslim.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

MEC said:

Now, we're told in all seriousness, and in the NYTimes nonetheless, that Obama is a muslim apostate, and so will be shunned by Middle Eastern countries, thereby undermining the prospects of diplomacy with them.

Oh shit, here we go again. Obama is a Muslim and Muslim apostate.

Obama is not black enough, and now he's too black.

Obama is an atheist, but he doesn't admit it.

Obama is too liberal by some, but not liberal enough for others.

I'm so fucking sick and tired of this shit.

Adam said:

I'm sorry but it is now becoming obvious that some people will look for any petty non-issue as a reason not to vote for Obama.

This is precisely what I see. Obama has to be perfect in order for people to vote for him. They will cling on to any little tiny thing as an excuse to not vote for him.

I'm am so fucking weary and tired of our sad and disgusting state of affairs here in the U.S.A.

MEC said

Sorry, Adam, that was you who said that.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying. But hey, maybe we can try Clinton's strategy, and just threaten to nuke a Middle Eastern country without provocation and to win political points. Surely that's less threatening than a president's father having left the Muslim faith decades ago

Obama can't do anything right with some people, no matter what he says or what he does... sigh..

just threaten to nuke a Middle Eastern country without provocation

Without provocation?

I'm so fucking sick and tired of this shit.

Me too. Now that it is apparent that Clinton, based on the math, has no path to the nomination, I find it even more tiresome.

So: Even if you support Clinton--and there can be reasonable differences on policy here--let me put it in stark terms.

Maybe you didn't like Obama's healthcare plan because it did not have unspecified 'mandates' in it, and it was frationally different than Clintons. Fine, we could argue about that, but that's not where we're at now. What we have a choice between is a healthcare plan a lot like Clintons and someone who will do either do nothing about healthcare, or make it worse through deregulation and so-called 'tax incentives'.

On judicial nominees, we have someone who, when some of the older justices retire next year, will not appoint someone who is anti-abortion, pro-corporatist, anti-civil rights, and inclined toward a pro-Schmittian view of executive power. And we have someone who does not. These are lifetime appointments.

On torture, we have a nominee who has consistently opposed it and a candidate who initiately opposed it but now has enthusiastically endorsed it in order to pander to the extreme right wing of his party.

On Iraq, maybe you don't believe the 'Obama-had-foresight' line when he predicted before the invasion that Iraq would lapse into sectarian strife. It was pretty obvious, even then, that this was a real possibility, so I don't care if you don't feel like crediting him on that. What I do care about is that we have someone who wants a phased withdrawal and is willing to listen to informed assessments of how best to execute a policy and someone who has declared that the war may last indefinitely, that we can only leave when "victory" is accomplished (whatever that means), and who has openly declared, and even joked around about, bombing Iran.

It is time, it high time, to stop trading in this piddly shit about flag-pins, Wright, and Muslim apostacy garbage and get focused on what really matters--reversing the disastrous course that the Bush Administration has initiated and refuses to change.

Without provocation?

Iran at present represents no clear and present danger (although they are, apparently, intervening in Iraq). By most assessments, they are still 7-10 years away from developing nuclear weapons. Openly speculating about under what circumstances one would nuke them is threatening without provocation--and it is irresponsible.

Without provocation?

Yeah, and I believe Iran went to the UN to file a complaint against the US because of the Threats Hillary Clinton made against them. I'd love to see the threats that Iran Made against us, anyone?

Without provocation?

This sounds eerily familiar. Was our attack on Iraq without provocation?

MEG said?

I'd love to see the threats that Iran Made against us, anyone?

And what threats did Iraq make against us, anyone?

although [Iran] are, apparently, intervening in Iraq

And the USA ... isn't.

just threaten to nuke a Middle Eastern country without provocation

I'll accept that reading of the statement, but it could just as easily be read as "just threaten to nuke a Middle Eastern country without provocation" from a Middle Eastern country.

It was ambiguous, thanks for the charitable way you all addressed the ambiguity.

I'm with Akira on the "Grammar for white people" post.

This is just racist bullshit — the flipside being to make fun of black people because they don't know how to speak English.

If this blog threw all PC-ness overboard, I'd never bother commenting on this... But that would of course also mean that members should feel free to make fun of how black people talk in the movie theater and never get out of the way when crossing a road and a car approaches...

RE: President Apostate

Fellow OGM readers, I have a confession to make. My father was an irresponsible alcoholic - he decided that womanizing was was preferable to living up to his parental responsibilities. Furthermore, my stepfather was fond of consuming 3-4 fifths of Seagram's Gin in any given week. So you see, my alcoholic heritage precludes me from serving as an effective chemistry professor - and despite the fact that I drink very much in moderation - there is no such thing as a nonalcoholic member of my family. It makes no difference that I have renounced drinking in excess. Likewise, thirty-two years of sobriety in my adult life is irrelevant. Once your father is a boozer, so shall be the sons.

I will never be able to credibly serve as an example to hung-over undergraduates - they will discover that deep down inside, I'm an alky. Deans and associate Provosts will forever denigrate the chemistry department for having hired the son of an alky.

Fortunately, I have one leg up on EDWARD N. LUTTWAK - I'm not a complete douchebag.

I will never be able to credibly serve as an example to hung-over undergraduates - they will discover that deep down inside, I'm an alky.

Shit! I have that a dream every night.

I have this horrible fear video tapes of my undergraduate years will one day emerge, and my clever students will grab hold of a copy, and be like--shit, this is what you were like when you were our age? Screw you man, I'm not learning anything today, you friggin' alky!

I'll accept that reading of the statement, but it could just as easily be read as "just threaten to nuke a Middle Eastern country without provocation" from a Middle Eastern country.

It was ambiguous, thanks for the charitable way you all addressed the ambiguity.

The point was speculating about Iran having nuclear weapons, whether putatively 'provoked' by Israel or the U.S., is not a helpful conversation to have, when the animus of the very question is to prove your saber-rattling credentials as nonchalant about incinerating millions.

Imagine: A leader from another country says, "I'm going to nuke the United States." How do you think our oh so sagacious leaders would react to that?

RE: Welcome to Bitter Films

Rejected is one of my favorite short movies. Those political comics you linked to are great.

he point was speculating about Iran having nuclear weapons, whether putatively 'provoked' by Israel or the U.S., is not a helpful conversation to have, when the animus of the very question is to prove your saber-rattling credentials as nonchalant about incinerating millions.

I've made the point before that I thought it unnecessary bluster. I don't think outside the context of a partisan election it would merit much notice. I'm reminded of Reagan's comment bombing commences in... You're right Hillary statement was calculated for political effect. I doubt Barack supporters would have been jumping up and down in righteous indignation if it was their candidate had made the comment. Here's one for you, how would you react if you heard Barack call a female reporter sweetie in dismissing her question? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juy9NwI8_i0

Here's one for you, how would you react if you heard Barack call a female reporter sweetie in dismissing her question?

Not good - not good at all. It hurts Obama to sound like a patronizing old pol - speaking to a (probably younger) female reporter like maybe he was her father and she was eleven years old. Doesn't quite rise to the level of unnecessarily threatening to exterminate the populace of an entire nation, but not good.

unnecessarily threatening to exterminate the populace of an entire nation, but not good.

Maybe I'm just missing something here, but do you really think that Hillary literally meant obliterate as in kill every man woman and child. Aren't you just taking the most extreme interpretation of what she said for political purposes, and using it to bash her, and all this hyperbole at a point in the campaign where it is for all practical purposes over. It is much easier to be gracious when your candidate is winning. The candidate seems to understand it, but many of his supporters clearly don't. I don't give him better than a 50/50 chance of becoming president. If he loses in the fall it will be in part because Democrats who may have rallied to his support will be sitting on the sidelines because when it no longer mattered they were treated like shit.

I doubt Barack supporters would have been jumping up and down in righteous indignation if it was their candidate had made the comment.

Well, all I can do is say speak for myself: if Obama did that, it would be unacceptable, in exactly the same way and in exactly the same sense that it is unacceptable to me that Clinton or McCain has made such a threat. (Have I mentioned before? My support for Obama does not mean, at all, that he is above criticism. Fair criticism. It's just that I don't find flag pins, Wright, 'secret Muslim apostate' conspiracies, or blanket assertions about what all Obama supporters are, in general, like, terrible convincing).

Here's one for you, how would you react if you heard Barack call a female reporter sweetie in dismissing her question?

Politicians are supposed to answer every dumb comment and question someone barks out at them, rudely and at random? Granted, perhaps "sweetie" wasn't the appropriate word, but it is really hard to tell what the heck is going on in that video--and based on the reporter's snide tone and the way she rudely just barges in on the conversation Obama is having and shoves a camera in his face, I'd say she deserved to be dismissed like a child for acting like a child.

If the point of this video is to show that Obama can be an arrogant prick, and thinks himself a bit of a prince, I'd have to say there are probably better examples.

but do you really think that Hillary literally meant obliterate as in kill every man woman and child.

I don't know what other meanings "obliterate" and "massive retaliation" have in the context of a discussion about nuclear arms than "obliterate with nuclear weapons" or "massively retaliate with nuclear weapons". I'd welcome other interpretations that strike you as plausible, but I was not the only one to understand her remark in the manner glossed above.

Here is a link on conversational implicatures

Maybe I'm just missing something here, but do you really think that Hillary literally meant obliterate as in kill every man woman and child.

Well, I don't know about Hillary, but the Nukes she's talking about using seem to be pretty indiscriminate.

WARNING probably NSFW and not for sensitive viewers....

do you really think that Hillary literally meant obliterate as in kill every man woman and child. Aren't you just taking the most extreme interpretation of what she said for political purposes, and using it to bash her,

I think she really meant to threaten to do just that. I don't think she would actually do that - at least I hope not. I'm bashing her because we should bash politicians who pander to our basest motives for the purposes of bolstering their images as "tough guys". At best, her chest beating would make her eventual task of realistically dealing Iran (or, to a lesser extent, any other nation) that much more difficult. And for what? Some temporary and very marginal boost in popularity among the knuckle-draggers of this country? It also implicitly expresses approval for Bush and McCain having behaved the same way. I will credit Clinton for later making reasoned statements about our relations with Iran.

As for your call for 'graciousness' and a your attempt to shame us for beating Hillary when she is down - I call 'foul'. It was you, Norm, who made explicit the comparison of Obama's paternalistic treatment of a reporter in response to complaints about Clinton's saber-rattling. When Obama makes similarly bellicose statements - I do solemnly promise to jump up and down with righteous indignation - even more so for having betrayed his supporters in doing so.

Norm said:

I've made the point before that I thought it unnecessary bluster. I don't think outside the context of a partisan election it would merit much notice.

This is one of the main reasons that I support Obama. He has stated that he wants to speak with the leaders of such countries as Iran. He has stated that he will not play the fear card. Hillary played the fear card, and I am against that.

I doubt Barack supporters would have been jumping up and down in righteous indignation if it was their candidate had made the comment.

I would have been very indignant because this is one of the main reasons that I support Obama, because he doesn't beat the war drum.

Here's one for you, how would you react if you heard Barack call a female reporter sweetie in dismissing her question?

I hate it when either a man or a woman refers to me as "sweetie". But is this your response to Hillary beating the war drum?

Maybe I'm just missing something here, but do you really think that Hillary literally meant obliterate as in kill every man woman and child

Who knows how to interpret this? When George Bush began beating the war drum re attacking Iraq, I didn't take him all that seriously. Therefore, these days, I take a politician seriously when they declare that they will obliterate or attack another sovereign nation.

You, and what I have taken to be lately, your alter ego, Charles Lemos, have been critical of Hillary Clinton maybe one or two times. One time had to do with her work towards legislation which would outlaw flag burning and her "tax holiday" pandering. Actually only you have been critical of Hillary these two times.

If Obama had sponsored a bill on outlawing flag burning or if he had voted or spoke out in favor of invading Iraq, I would have been critical of that decision.

I have been over critical of Hillary Clinton in other ways only because I feel that you have been over critical of Barack Obama in just about every way. It's a matter of balance.

If he loses in the fall it will be in part because Democrats who may have rallied to his support will be sitting on the sidelines because when it no longer mattered they were treated like shit.

So Americans are going to vote based on their fucking ego instead of what's right for our country? No wonder George Bush was elected twice. And this is the answer to that question from the Brits as to why so many Americans could be so damned stupid as to re-elect George Bush.

Anyway, the Democratic nominee is Obama. Why still fight about the differences between Hillary and Barack. It's a moot topic now.

If I'm not mistaken Barack has said he would attack Iraq if they attacked our allies. He didn't rule out using nukes, he didn't rule out obliterating them with conventional weapons. Do you think there is no collateral damage when we drop 2000 lb bombs. Do you think any American president is going to worry excessively about civilian casualties if the alternative is more dead American soldiers.

Good point. He's more hawkish than I would prefer, but more dovish than Hillary. Both are less scary than McCain, no doubt about that

If I'm not mistaken I made the point that fighting about the differences was a moot point and yet after making that comment the Hillary bashing continued.

Well, hopefully both the Hillary bashing and the Obama bashing will both end and Democrats will make peace with each other.

Well how about that we've gone full circle and are now in complete agreement.

Hurrah! You know I how much I like you Norm. ;)

Exactly my point, but then I didn't raise the question of Hillary's Iran comments again. If I'm not mistaken I made the point that fighting about the differences was a moot point and yet after making that comment the Hillary bashing continued.

This is hard to buy. You posted an article--even taking your caveat that you don't agree with the full content of all the articles you post--saying explicitly that Barak would not be able to effectively carry on diplomacy with the Middle East because he is a "Muslim apostate," which, as I have already explained, is both absurd and baseless. The reason Hillary's nuclear comments came up is because I asked which would potentially be more alienating to middle eastern countries: the fact that Obama's father left the Muslim faith 40 some years ago, or the a direct and explicit threat to use nuclear weapons on Iran.

So: If the Barack vs Hillary issue is moot, why are you posting articles that smear Barack with bullshit about "muslim apostacy"? Even if you do not agree with all the assertions in that article--again, taking your disclaimer seriously--what is especially note- or discussion worthy about baseless smear?

Now, speaking of hermeneutic generosity...

No--siding with Tim--I do not believe Hillary literally plans actually to nuke Iran, but I do believe she intended to explicitly threaten to do so. My point was that her comments were deeply irresponsible.

Exactly my point, but then I didn't raise the question of Hillary's Iran comments again. If I'm not mistaken I made the point that fighting about the differences was a moot point and yet after making that comment the Hillary bashing continued.

There is a difference between saying that we are willing to defend ourselves and our allies, and explicitly threatening to use nukes, for whatever purpose. As I have never maintained that Obama is perfect, nor do expect him, in his supposed saintliness, to inaugurate a utopian era of global peace and prosperity, I am willing to defend his remarks as a cautiously stated version of the anodyne claim, to be expected from any presidential candidate, that he is willing to protect the United States by whatever means necessary. That is different that explicitly invoking the prospects of a nuclear attack and identifying a specific target.