A Way Out in the Israel-Islamist Battle in South Lebanon

289 thoughts on “A Way Out in the Israel-Islamist Battle in South Lebanon”

1. If this incident is accurate, there is also a reasoned and persuasive argument as to why Chomsky should have been put before a firing squad and shot (and add Jane Fonda to make it a two-fer).

   …
   I’m sorry, did I mistakenly click on LGF?
   Tell me again why Charles is given a forum here?

2. There is also a reasoned and persuasive argument as to why Hezbollah should be destroyed. If this incident is accurate, there is also a reasoned and persuasive argument as to why Chomsky should have been put before a firing squad and shot (and add Jane Fonda to make it a two-fer).
   I think we need an HOCB thread badly.

3. Oh Christ.
   Can Hilzoy and Katherine just get their own blog? That way I can read Andrew at his and avoid this drivel.

4. The Bizarro World* version for your reading pleasure (or not).
   *I use Bizarro World in the most wholesome and cuddly sense, of course.

5. Ah yes.
   Krauthammer, Trevino, and ObWi’s own loser-defeatist.
   Three people who have been wrong on foreign policy every time they have opened their mouths.
   Three people who told us that invading Iraq would solve all the problems, that trusting Bush would solve all the problems, that throwing away the Geneva Convention would solve all the problems.
   So by now, they’ve accumulated quite a lot of credibility on foreign affairs, wouldn’t you say?
   What a joke.

6. This began as a good post. I was reading with interest, noting offhand to myself that the addition of Andrew is a good influence on everyone, but it looks like Charles has been the most influenced — in a good way.
   Then I got to the Chomsky-Fonda firing squad line of unfinished business from the Vietnam War and I’ve decided … yes, I’ve decided, I say, that …. I agree … let’s do it!
   Let’s get this ball rolling, please. I’m sick of empty talk. In fact, since we live in a free country, we could privatize this effort, and bypass the cumbersome machinery of government.
   May I make the bumper stickers? Tony Snow’s comment the other day regarding stem cells that Bush does not believe in “murder” and “taking live things and making them dead” (I think that was the quote) can be phrased in such a way to justify what needs to be done with blastocysts Jane and Noam.
   I want Bill Keller shot through the heart, too, and the New York Times shuttered by government agents.
   This will be precedent.
   The next Democratic President will then have the moral high ground when he orders, under his newly found powers, the trials for treason and the deaths by firing squad of the many thousands of Republican neocon filth, in the government, in the media, and in the blogosphere who have brought Iraq to its current state, with worse to come, if thirdgorchbro is right in his comment in the previous thread.

7. If this is supposed to help the Lebanese army defeat Hezbollah, why the hell is Israel attacking Lebanese army bases?

8. small point here, really nothing in the grand world-historical sweep of this post, but:
   “I pegged the Iran-to-Hezbollah subsidy at $100 million per year. Apparently, it’s orders of magnitude more:
   [snip]
   That makes it $240 to $480 million per year.”
   You know, words actually do mean something, even if you are a Republican. And the words “orders of magnitude” mean “powers of ten” or “factors of ten.”
   So, for something to be “orders of magnitude” more than 100 million, it has to be in the billions. Your higher estimates, whatever they are based on, are exactly *not* orders of magnitude more than $100 million. It’s not just a synonym for “gosh, more, I mean, more than I can count!”
   But given the rest of the nonsense in this post, why do I bother?

9. Charles: “If this incident is accurate, there is also a reasoned and persuasive argument as to why Chomsky should have been put before a firing squad and shot (and add Jane Fonda to make it a two-fer).”
   I think that calling for people to be killed, absent trial and conviction of a capital crime, is repellent, and we need to have a discussion of whether it belongs on this blog. Personally, I hate the idea of setting up limits on what people can write, but that’s partly because I had this odd idea that people might choose their words responsibly.

10. ah–apparently you have been just skipping over his posts for the last few years without reading them?

11. In a futile effort to prevent this thread from becoming all about CB’s Chomsky/Jane Fonda aside, I’ll reiterate what I said on an earlier thread.
    If Israel confines itself in the next few weeks to making war on Hezbollah, and if it coordinates its eventual pullout with the Lebanese Army, and if the US and EU can provide cash infusions to help the Lebanese rebuild (and to counteract Iran’s monetary aid to Hezbollah), then maybe this can all work out.
    Otherwise, we’re looking at Lebanese Civil War 2.

12. rats, i didn’t even make it to the “shoot Chomsky” bit. i saw links to Krauthammer, Trevino, Whitman and the rest of the clowns who’ve been consitently wrong about everything and decided i’d just skip to the comments to see what kind of abuse BD was going to get today. my loss, i guess.

13. Wow, you’v got Thullen weighing in and 3GB acting as fireman, all within 11 comments.
    For the 12th, your HoCB thread

14. If this incident is accurate, there is also a reasoned and persuasive argument as to why Chomsky should have been put before a firing squad and shot (and add Jane Fonda to make it a two-fer).
    There is also a reasoned and persuasive argument as to why many members of the current administration should have been put before a firing squad and shot (note to the SS/NSA, argument used for rhetorical purposes only).

15. Ahh, cleek slips in, making my comment a lie.
    Otherwise, we’re looking at Lebanese Civil War 2.
    I know it gets heated here 3GB, but that’s a bit of an overstatement.
    (btw, 3GB, if you’d like a slot over at HoCB, I’ll have my people talk to your people)

16. “[I] saw links to Krauthammer, Trevino, Whitman and the rest of the clowns who’ve been consitently wrong about everything”
    I’m trying to identify, to really place, the gassy, queasy, sick-to-my-stomach irritation I feel whenever I see those names, along with CB’s; and I think I’ve finally placed it.
    High school. Good-friend-turned-Jesus-Freak. It wasn’t just that she kept telling the rest of us we were going to Hell, and that we could tell she got a really big kick out the idea. It was how everything that happened at school – everything, to everyone; even people who didn’t even know her – she could twist around as proof that God looked out for her, and listened to her, and answered her prayers. It made you wonder what kind of prayers she had, that she would wish such things on people.
    It got so even those of us who’d really liked her would avoid having anything to do with her. She was nuts. Mean and nuts. Not a trace left of the person we used to know and like.
    And that’s who CB, Trevino, et al. remind me of.

17. Well, what the heck. If a professor who’s never had elective power can be shot for his policy advocacy, does that work for bloggers who keep endorsing an administration enthusiastically committed to war crimes, too?
    *sigh*

18. I know it gets heated here 3GB, but that’s a bit of an overstatement.
    Well, most sequels are less exciting than the original.
    Thanks for the HoCB thread. Make use of it, people!

19. Is it just me, or is it quite telling that (as of now) the only comment at the bizzaro world version of Charles’ post is from a fellow editor and reads:
    Great work, Charles
    Hezbollah in Lebanon must be destroyed. There’s still time to deal with the Iranians, but the time to isolate and destroy their influence west of Iraq is now.

20. Wasn’t the Kobar Towers bombing attributed to both Al qaeda and Saddam Hussein as the political winds dictated?
    What this is really all about is
    (1) A war on Islam to satisfy the Rapture Right,
    (2) A grand restructuring of the Middle East to secure Oil
    (3) Securing Israel,
    (4) Reelecting Republicans,
    (5) Preventing future acts of terrorism
    in roughly that order. As usual, facts are being fixed around the policy.
    The very real problems of the ME are not part of the agenda. It would be nice to work to undo some of the idiocy of Sykes/Picot, which would go a long way towards creating the necessary environment for the people actually living there to create peace (hint: it’s not going to come from the barrel of a US gun).

21. Look on the bright side, ugh, at least they didn’t have “Chomsky” in place of “Hezbollah in lebanon”

22. If Israel confines itself in the next few weeks to making war on Hezbollah
    But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re killing a dozen civilians to maybe-or-not kill a couple of enemies.
    The use of airstrikes that Israel *knows* will kill civilians is wrong, wrong, wrong. If Israel wants to eradicate Hezbollah, then they have to do it with ground troops, and they have to accept their losses.
    As it is, Israel clearly regards Lebanese civilians as vermin.
    –And the U.S. response is “kill more civilians for another week, then we’ll talk.”

23. “hezbollah” = Party of God
    (POG, you might say).
    It’s a mantle lots of folks would like to claim (see Coulter, Ponnuru, etc.)
    Is there any reason to think that the “Saudi Party of God”, which is doubtless Sunni, has anything to do with the “Party of God” operating in Lebanon, whose links are mostly Shiite?
    I mean, other than the fact that both groups are despicable murderers. But, like, are they operationally connected? Or is it just a name?

24. High school. Good-friend-turned-Jesus-Freak.
    That’s funny, because the people they remind me of (college acquaintances) were self-righteously mean when I first knew them, and only got self-righteously meaner.
    Although I think what’s truly funny — only because I can’t find it in me to be truly sad about this any more — is that doubtless Charles et al. will regard our outrage at his calls for murder as merely a justification of the correctness of his views. Which, now that I think about it, reminds me exactly of those folks I knew in college.

25. I don’t know if Charles made it clear, but a result of resolution 1559, UN peacekeeping forces have been in Lebanon for years now.

    By its resolution 1655 of 31 January 2006, the Security Council extended the mandate of UNIFIL until 31 July 2006 and called again on the Government of Lebanon to fully extend and exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the south. By that resolution, the Council condemned all acts of violence, including the serious incidents across the Blue Line initiated from the Lebanese side that had resulted in deaths and injuries on both sides.

    Link

26. I’d suggest we let the newbie handle this one. Andrew, knock yourself out!

27. One hopes that the similarity between the recent increases in calls from the American Right for firing squads and the unrestrained use of firing squads during the very last days of the Nazi regime in Berlin is not just a coincidence but a case of history repeating itself — the last, angry throes of a collapsing Fascist order.
    (And honestly, Jane Fonda? Note to frothing wingnuts: it’s the twenty-first century now.)

28. Thanks, lj. Unfortunately, I don’t think they make a fire extinguisher that works via the internet.

29. Quoted from RedState: “Hezbollah in Lebanon must be destroyed. There’s still time to deal with the Iranians, but the time to isolate and destroy their influence west of Iraq is now.”
    Wow, that’s just idiotic. Defeating Hezbollah will “isolate and destroy” Iran’s influence west of Iraq? As if Iran won’t bother recruiting new guerillas from the ranks of now-really-pissed-off people in Lebanon and elsewhere?
    Really, I wish these people would go back to their basements and get their jollies playing wargames.

30. Charles, I think you opened up your otherwise excellent post to tangential criticism by throwing in an unneccesary attack at the end. That is too bad because now we won’t be able to talk about the rest of it.

31. “That is too bad because now we won’t be able to talk about the rest of it.”
    Yes, we should be talking about Charles’ Coalition Of The Wrong and why we should listen to anything they say, ever, about anything.
    I’d think they should just take their winnings (the civil war in chaotic theocratic Iraq) and be happy, having gotten everything they wanted.

32. Alas this is the problem with our news media. Editorialists seem to be picked based on readership and market demand, which bear no relationship to their prognosticative capabilities. You should check out an archive of Krauthammer’s old articles: it reads like some kind of fantasy alternative history of the last five years. It just drives me crazy that these people have so much influence. And am I just biased or is there something about his presentation that sounds like propaganda? The way he frames the situation: “Hence the golden, unprecedented opportunity. Hezbollah makes a fatal mistake.” I’m focused on ‘fatal’. It seems presumptuous and question begging to me. I am suspicious of its placement as an attribute rather than a predicate. And there is another characteristic of this: so much talk about what needs to be done, what problems there are, and so little talk about whether the proposed solution is feasible. I wish there was some way of keeping these editorialists accountable to their former predictions and policy advice. But I can’t think of anything.

33. Not one of your best posts, Charles: if you really want to make a point about a “way out” of the “Hezbollah Quandary”: just a few suggestions:
    First: find a set of bloglinks a little more, umm, -representative- of outstanding opinion: citing obsessive warfloggers like Charles Krauthammer or Josh Trevino about “what to do” (or “what Israel should do”) in Lebanon scuppers your arguments from the get-go. At least I read the links – too many readers, as it seems from the comments, will turn off right at this point. Characters like Tacitus or Marshall Wittman have tended, for years now, to specialized in boosting tough-talking, hoo-ah, bomb-their-asses policies as panaceas for every “problem” in the Middle East: I think by this point in time, the shortcomings of that approach should be obvious – at to anyone who actually thinks about the issues. Which, I would imagine, encompasses a large proportion of the ObWi readership.
    Secondly: PLEASE try to avoid the reflex to disfigure your commentary with nonsensical right-wing boilerplate BirdDog-isms like your Chomsky/Fonda aside: A clue, BD: the war in Vietnam is over: it’s history, just like old Noam himself: garbage like your “firing squad” aside is only going to turn off another large percentage of readers: and does nothing to advance your point.
    And finally: you might want to delve a little more deeply into analyses of recent Lebanese history: yes, the persistence of Hezbollah as a quasi-independent entity in Southern Lebanon IS one of the (IMO, the main) pieces of unfinished business of the “Cedar Revolution” – but it is a problem that was most definitely the Lebanese peoples’ and governments’ own to have to solve. However much however large a segment of Lebanon’s public might dislike/distrust Hezbollah – it is a safe bet that they dislike/distrust Israel even more: and the notion that “… Israel …doing the work that the Lebanese army should be doing but cannot.” will do anything other than spark anger, resentment and hatred in the public mind is, imho, foolish wishful-thinking: all too typical, to me, of the clueless warblogger spouting Good-vs-Evil cliches over a situation in which they really don’t fit.

34. “garbage like your “firing squad” aside is only going to turn off another large percentage of readers”
    Not likely. Those who would be turned off by such a comment have long since been turned off by the myriad of other such unnecessary inflammatory comments in Charles’s writings.

35. For some people on the right politics is an extension of ego. They can’t think clearly because they are too emotionally involved in protecting their own pride. They have to feel like winners so they won’t feel like losers. There is no objectivity, only a complete commitment to making sure they can feel strong and powerful and victorious. They can rationalize but they can’t think.
    I am surprised that Charles would show such overt comtempt for the rule of law. One of my objections to the fantasy that we are “planting a democracy in the Middle East” is that those words so often come out of the mouths of people who have no respect for the principles underlying democracy here.

36. “I wrote in an earlier comment thread that Israel is doing the work that the Lebanese army should be doing but cannot”
    As opposed to the work the US military should be doing in Iraq but cannot.
    Why should the Israeli army, let alone the Lebanese army be capable of doing something we have failed so miserably at, over three years, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

37. What 3GB said. (I see that not reading past “Another Charles” was not a mistake, though in fairness it appears that there were some sort of reasonable points made about Israel’s new strategy.) I’m very relieved that Israel has explicitly switched to a new storyline (“softening” Hizbollah’s military capability rather than either destroying them or retrieving the hostages) and that they are now dishing out random numbers a la Vietnam body counts. (via sandmonkey, JPost “has learned” that 40-50% of Hizbollah’s military capacity has been destroyed. Yeah right. Let’s all pretend guerillas operate just like regular armies and everything will be peachy.)
    Pounding Lebanon for another week but not escalating any further means a lot more innocent dead people and a loss of credibility for Israel, which is quite probably a bad thing for everybody in the long run, but it’s still better than world war n+1.
    I’ll be damned if I can figure out what Israel’s long term plan is though. Sooner or later, one way or another, the ghettos and the econowar and the apartheid are going to end. It’s very strange that even Olmert seems less concerned with salvaging a Jew-friendly state out of that process than with keeping up appearances. Very strange indeed.

38. It starts by preparing the ground with air power
    Life during wartime can be very educational. Every day I learn a new clean, clinical way to say “blow stuff up and kill innocent people.”
    I’ve enjoyed reading and occasionally commenting on ObWi for a couple of years now, but I think it’s time to bid everybody here a fond farewell. If/when I learn that the site’s much-vaunted “posting rules” include a prohibition against incitement to murder, I’ll be back. Or when hilzoy & Katherine get their own blog, as Christmas says. Whichever comes first.
    Bill O’Reilly stated that Iran has huge reserves of oil but scant refining capacity.
    Then it must be true.
    Later, folks.

39. What is it with the (increasing?) number of people on the right of the political spectrum in the US who so casually call for the murder of people who’s opinions differ from theirs?
    I’m sure (at least I hope) that Charles Bird and others believe (or claim to believe) fervently in the rather crucial concept of a rule of law. And yet there is this casual “aside” calling for a couple of people Charles Bird disagrees with to be shot.
    Maybe it has always been this way. Has it?

40. I was looking for Charles to get torn up in the comments, and I’d missed what he’d said about Chomsky. By that point, I was just skimming to see if there was any sign that CB had read Hilzoy’s post on Hezbollah, so the previous sentence was much more revealing to me: “There is also a reasoned and persuasive argument as to why Hezbollah should be destroyed.” Yes, getting rid of Hezbollah, why hasn’t anyone ever thought of that before? As soon as I saw the word “Chomsky” in the next sentence I figured that there was nothing relevant there and jumped on to the next paragraph.
    I was befuddled ever since the non sequitor in CB’s second paragraph. Israel should degrade Hezbollah to the point where Lebanon can finish the job, and doing so would actually help Lebanon comply with a UN resolution, therefore(???) the “international community” should refrain from speaking about what Israel should do. Not only is Charles showing no concern whatsoever about “collateral damage” from Israel’s actions (you know, dead people, destroyed homes and businesses, etc., etc.), but there is not even any sign of concern for whether Israel is actually accomplishing what he thinks they should be doing. Are they actually weakening Hezbollah very much? Are they also weakening the Lebanese government, society, and economy in ways that would make it harder to crack down on Hezbollah? Is Israel at risk of needlessly antagonizing people who could be on their side against Hezbollah? Is Israel even trying to do what Charles says they should be doing? And if they are, does it look like it’s going to work? I’d like to see arguments over these questions, but instead I didn’t even see any awareness of their existence or relevance, which is what prompted me to start scanning for any sign that Charles had read Hilzoy’s post.
    Since you seem to agree with this part of Charles’s post, Sebastian, do you want to give it a try? I’d recommend another post, rather than trying to break through in these comments.

41. To clarify:
    “…. if ThirdGorchBro is right in his comment in the previous thread.”
    should have read ..
    “if ThirdGorchBro is right in his July 19, 10:34 am comment regarding Iraq in Hilzoy’s post entitled “There Are No Words”.
    See, once you get the firing squads cranked up, everything goes into the crapper.
    Carry on.

42. I agree with the 3GB comment in the other thread, with one modification: I think the UN should send a force in to disarm Hezbollah to try to minimize the chance for sectarian fighting/civil war that would likely happen if the Lebanese government tried to disarm them on their own. Not the best scenario either, but better than anything I’ve heard from anyone else.

43. To get gasoline, Iran must export the oil and import the refined product. Assuming this is accurate, and assuming most of the oil and gasoline are shipped, a naval blockade would shut down their economy rather quickly. Food for thought.
    not much food, however.
    are the people advocating military action against Iran and Syria out of their minds, or just crazy ? we’re already in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can’t even keep those places under control. what in the world makes anyone think we have the ability to control Iran and Syria as well ?
    my the FSM save us from ourselves.

44. “what in the world makes anyone think we have the ability to control Iran and Syria as well ?”
    They just think Bush will use his Green Lantern Power Ring and his force of will and make it work.

45. Hmmm. How did the Irish and the British go about disarming the popularly legitimate guerilla group(s) in their midst? Can’t recall the details.
    However they did it, I think I remember that airstrikes weren’t part of the program.

46. What Blar said all around. I started skimming when I realized I was getting a lot of propoganda without much in the way of “will this actually work and how?” I was really hoping Andrew would offer a comment one way or the other on that topic as he seems to have a firm grasp of what military force is and isn’t capable of accomplishing. However, if either he or Sebastian actually wanted to tackle this issue (or maybe draw out what Charles said with wording that doesn’t provide a gross violation of posting rules or misuse phrases like “order of magnitude” to provide hyperbolic strangth), it would please me greatly.

47. Apparently, Hezbollah has a lot of Christian and American members.
    Israeli airstrikes hit targets in Beirut’s main Christian enclave on Wednesday, a short distance from where hundreds of U.S. citizens were boarding a cruise ship chartered to evacuate them to the nearby island of Cyprus.
    Who knew? (cue Gary to stop by and note that there are many Christian and American members of Hezbollah).
    Also taking care of Hezbollah’s most dangerous weapon:
    In Beirut, an Israeli missile attack on two well-digging trucks in the Ashrafiyeh enclave Wednesday morning caused no injuries and did little damage, but rattled windows and nerves in a normally quiet Maronite Christian neighborhood that was a stronghold for Israel’s allies during its 1982 invasion against Palestinian guerrillas.

48. I think the UN should send a force in to disarm Hezbollah to try to minimize the chance for sectarian fighting/civil war that would likely happen if the Lebanese government tried to disarm them on their own.
    Would this UN force have the authority to engage Hezbollah in combat operations? And if so, what nations would be providing the troops? My recollection is that UN peacekeepers tend to work best in situations where the prior belligerents are ready for peace (e.g. Sinai, Cyprus). In places where they still want to slaughter each other, like Rwanda or Bosnia, UN peacekeeping missions tend to utter failure. I honestly don’t believe that a UN force without American support would be capable of forcibly disarming Hezbollah. And I don’t think it would be in the USA’s interests to get involved in a military campaign in Lebanon at this point. On the other hand, I would definitely support US military assistance (money, arms, equipment, even a few SF trainers) to the Lebanese Army, if that army was engaging Hezbollah.

49. Cleek, it’s neither insanity nor stupidity; it’s folly, as admirably chronicled by Barbara Tuchman. The March of Folly should be required reading for voters this season. Very smart people can be foolish, as can otherwise sane people. And all the elements of Tuchman’s definition apply – policy contrary to self-interest pursued in the face of warnings and accessible alternatives through multiple administrations – when we remember how many of these folks were Nixon people. They’ve had chances to learn and change, they’re just not interested in doing so.

50. By the way, I agree with everyone who says they’d like some actually informed commentary on how a competent military campaign aimed at disarming a powerful independent force would go. I don’t know much about such things and am quite willing to learn.

51. Bruce B: ditto.

52. Is the IDF capable of destroying Hezbollah? Short answer, no with an unless, long answer yes, but.
    Assuming Hezbollah’s leadership and a majority of its combat power is all located in southern Lebanon (something that, even if it was true when this began, is unlikely to have remained so), the IDF could have executed a cordon and search mission in southern Lebanon to hunt down and kill or capture the lion’s share of Hezbollah. An attempt to do so, however, would have run into several problems.
    As I understand it, in order for Israel to employ the full force of the IDF, they need to call up their reserves, which takes time and damages their economy. That would have given Hezbollah at least some warning that a strike was coming, and would have meant a very high economic cost to Israel.
    The human toll on Israel would be even worse. Southern Lebanon is heavily mined and Hezbollah knows the ground very well. A major Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon would suffer significant casualties as soon as they crossed the border. That problem would only get worse as they moved into the towns of southern Lebanon to clear them of Hezbollah forces. Imagine several Fallujas going on at the same time, over a period of several weeks. And while they were doing this, the IDF would have to maintain a hard cordon around southern Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah from evacuating the area. And who knows what other surprises Hezbollah might have if the IDF were to try and root them out? I’d guess they would exact a terrible toll on the IDF. The IDF might be able to absorb the casualties as a military force, but I’m not sure if Israel could sustain such losses as a country.
    The human toll on the civilian population of southern Lebanon would be far worse. Even assuming Israel took every precaution to safeguard civilian lives, street fighting is absolutely devastating to the civilian population. Add in the airstrikes on both the cities and convoys attempting to escape the fighting and we could easily see 100 times the deaths the past week’s fighting have demonstrated.
    So is Charles’ proposal possible? Yes, in the sense that it could theoretically be accomplished (although, as I noted, I think it might be too late now). But from a more realistic calculus, such a maneuver would leave Israel vulnerable to attack from other directions and would enact a financial and human toll that I don’t believe Israel could sustain, and I don’t even want to think about the humanitarian disaster it would create. (I realize the current situation is bad, but the hypothetical ‘wipe out Hezbollah’ scenario would dwarf what we’re currently seeing.)

53. Kevin Drum has a great quote on his site right now, which i will share:

    It’s not that we Israelis long for war or death or grief, but we do long for those “old days” the taxi driver talked about. We long for a real war to take the place of all those exhausting years of intifada when there was no black or white, only gray….
    Suddenly, the first salvo of missiles returned us to that familiar feeling of a war fought against a ruthless enemy who attacks our borders, a truly vicious enemy, not one fighting for its freedom and self-determination, not the kind that makes us stammer and throws us into confusion. Once again we’re confident about the rightness of our cause and we return with lightning speed to the bosom of the patriotism we had almost abandoned. Once again, we’re a small country surrounded by enemies, fighting for our lives, not a strong, occupying country forced to fight daily against a civilian population.

    between the urge to define this as “WW n+1” (thanks radish) so as to put it on the same level of moral clarity as previous WWs, the flag-waving and the garishly distended patriotism, the “faster, please” urge to get their war on, etc., this pretty much sums-up the hawkish right.

54. My personal boggle is the part of the plan where we cut off our noses to spite our face.
    “Assuming this is accurate, and assuming most of the oil and gasoline are shipped, a naval blockade would shut down their economy rather quickly.”
    Iran produces some 4 million barrels per day (4m bbl/d) of petroleum. The International Energy estimates the total margin between present demand and current maximum production for the world at 2m bbl/d. Thus a shortfall of 2m bbl/d is created just from the Iranian blockade. Add to this the price changes due to insurance – that is, all ships passing through what would be a warzone would suffer an increase in insurance of between 5 and 50 times current rates (depending on carrier and other criteria) for the periods of transit. Some carriers would decline to carry mideast oil, while others would pass the costs along to the customers.
    Therefore the first order of pain is that global oil prices spike – and I honestly can’t estimate how high they’d go.
    The second order of pain is best presented as an analogy. How would the US react if someone else blockaded Kuwait? I expect that we’d mobilize to break the blockade – and do everything we could to get the world to help – just as we dealt with Iraq in the 1990s. Why, exactly, would we expect everyone else to remain hands-off if we shut down Iran?
    The most frequent argument I hear is that “we’re the key to their economy – we’re their customers, and they can’t afford to stop us.” Hello – reread item one. If we blockade Iran and so created a global oil shortage we have already fractured their economy. Once you’ve cut down the trees, you can’t expect them to shield you anymore.
    Yet I consistently see “blockade Iran” suggested. I happen to dislike pyrrhic victories, thank you very much. Find another plan.

55. Um, eek:
    Turkish officials signaled Tuesday they are prepared to send the army into northern Iraq if U.S. and Iraqi forces do not take steps to combat Turkish Kurdish guerrillas there

56. Andrew’s analysis sounds very plausible. I would hope that Israel can still weaken Hezbollah enough to enable the Lebanese government to bring them to heel. If it really wants to do so.
    BTW, I agree with Bruce Baugh as well. Everybody should read The March of Folly.

57. let’s see if I can plow new ground:
    the missiles that Iran has delivered to Hezbollah … imperils the lives of two million Israelis.
    now that’s an abuse of the English language. 2 million israelis may be within range of the missiles, but it is most certainly not the case that the lives of ALL of them are imperilled.
    naval blockade
    first, that’s an act of war. second, i guess that the grand test between the builders of anti-ship missiles and the builders of the ship missile defense systems would finally come about. third, our naval forces would have to get really good at defeating small boat suicide attacks. fourth, which society is better placed to endure suffering: Iran or the US, because oil prices are going to soar?

58. Hmm. Firing squads for Jane Fonda. Darn those angry liberal blogofascists and their primary campaigns!
    Jeez.

59. One assumes that any Israeli incursion into Lebanon would be carried out with the same care and humanity that left hundreds of Palestinians facedown with holes in their heads in 1982.
    Charles Krauthammer has written this column many times before, about various Arab untermenschen. Judged as an american journalist, Charles Krauthammer has every quality of a dog, except loyalty.

60. Here’s Iranian oil production:
    Oil
    That’s about 2.5 mbpd exports gone instantly. I suspect it would come out of the US’ 11 mbpd imports.
    They do import some gasoline, but probably not enough that their economy couldn’t survive without it:
    Gas
    A comment on Andrew’s analysis. Hezbollah could do real damage to israel by targeting industrial stuff in range, like chemical plants. They indicated that they knew this over the weekend. This might put a crimp in any all-out assault.

61. Entirely off-topic (please excuse; humble apologies; will be short), but in case anyone is interested, I’m not being evicted (for now). Situation still very insecure-making; see post for details.
    And now back to the Charles-bashing. (Citing Bill O’Reilly without checking? Sheesh.)

62. For light relief: if you like your humor black and strong.

63. That’s about 2.5 mbpd exports gone instantly. I suspect it would come out of the US’ 11 mbpd imports.
    More likely it would go to the highest bidder. I’d hate to think where that would send oil and gas prices.
    Hezbollah could do real damage to israel by targeting industrial stuff in range, like chemical plants.
    An excellent point. I didn’t consider the damage Israel would sustain at home in addition to that it would suffer in the fighting in southern Lebanon.

64. About the chemical plants: the analysis I’ve seen (can’t recall where) suggests that Hezbollah’s rockets (esp. the Katyushas) are too imprecise to target the chemical plants, or anything else specific (as opposed to something big like ‘Haifa’.)

65. There are words strong enough to express my revulsion at one more blinkered Charles Bird post, and they’d violate this site’s guidelines.
    But when I read, once more, that somebody a rightwing blowhard dislikes should be ‘lined up and shot,’ I have to respond. I’ve simply had it with radical rightwing blowhards calling for extrajudicial murder.
    Let me make this very clear, to people like Charles Bird, and Josh Trevino, and the rest of the Dolchstoß crowd. The Second Amendment applies to all Americans, not just rightwing blowhards. There are many people in this country who might be tempted to meet rightwing violence with … violence.
    You issue calls for murder at your own peril, people. Our civil society is much more fragile than you apparently think, and this misbegotten disaster in Iraq is fraying it a little bit more every day.
    So the next time you flippantly call for somebody to be lynched, or shot, or clapped in a camp somewhere, just remember that every day a few more people on the other side of the political divide are taking you seriously. And are arming themselves.

66. Kirk Spencer, I think your description is actually over-optimistic. It’d be more like cutting off an arm or a leg. In addition to the 2M or so that leaves the market instantly, and the suddenly higher cost of transporting anything through the gulf, there is a non-trivial possibility that the straits would be effectively closed for unknown periods of time. That’s up to 18M bbl/day for however long it takes.
    Bandar Abbas is the port that would have to be blockaded, and, well… just look at it on a map. The Iranians are well aware of the strategic importance of that little stretch of coastline, and have (presumably) thought long and hard about how to use it most effectively.
    I don’t doubt that sneaky Americans in wet desert cammo have been surveilling that whole area in person for months now, but the Iranians will always have the upper hand there. And bottom line, trying to blockade Iran will force both China’s and Europe’s hand. I don’t know about the Euros but the Chinese are not stupid enough to choose short term economic interests over long term strategic ones.

67. Having defended Charles in the past, sometimes for the sheer aesthetic bliss thereof, I have to say:
    Get his crap to LGF or Tacitus where it belongs. If I want to read about lining up Americans and shooting them, I’m sure that Storm Front and other sites can gratify my needs in that regard.

68. And, without any sense of irony, Bizarro World now has a post up entitled “Planned Parenthood’s Ridiculous Rhetoric” on the same page where Charles calls for the execution of Chomsky and Fonda.

69. My understanding is that a lot of Iran’s oil goes to Japan.

70. Three people who told us that invading Iraq would solve all the problems, that trusting Bush would solve all the problems, that throwing away the Geneva Convention would solve all the problems.
    Except that I never told you of such a thing, not.
    On the Chomsky line, I was just playing his own rhetoric back, trying to point out the easy moral equivalence (and depravity) he was engaging in. It truly baffles me that he has so many staunch defenders. What Chomsky did during the Vietnam War was on par with what Fonda did, again assuming that what he said and where he said it was accurate. Whether those are grounds for treason or not, I haven’t investigated. See my update.
    …Charles et al. will regard our outrage at his calls for murder…
    Where exactly did I call for murder, Anarch?
    And the words “orders of magnitude” mean “powers of ten” or “factors of ten.”
    My mistake, ord. Fixed.

71. yeah, anarch, that was really unfair of you.
    He called for people to be put before a firing squad and shot because of their political views.
    And since even in Wing-nut America there is no way to get a court to sentence someone to death for their political views, he was obviously calling for a non-judicial execution “absent trial and conviction of a capital crime”, as hilzoy pointed out.
    So he was calling for the non-judicial killing of people for their political views, but is that any reason to say he called for murder?
    you take that back right now, Anarch!

72. Exactly, Anarch. That’s not murder, that’s merely fascism.

73. Charles: “On the Chomsky line, I was just playing his own rhetoric back, trying to point out the easy moral equivalence (and depravity) he was engaging in.”
    Wrong. You said that there was a “a reasoned and persuasive argument as to why Chomsky should have been put before a firing squad and shot (and add Jane Fonda to make it a two-fer).” This is not just “playing his own rhetoric back”; it’s adding in a recommendation that he be shot. Nor does this in any way “point out the easy moral equivalence he was engaging in”. At any rate, I don’t see how it does: it says nothing about easy moral equivalence or anything of the kind, and it does say something about his being shot. Not that he committed treason, or that he should be tried, but that he should be shot.
    There’s a difference.
    “It truly baffles me that he has so many staunch defenders.” — Oddly, Charles, I don’t see a single person here defending Chomsky, or Jane Fonda for that matter. I do see a lot of people objecting to your saying that people should be shot. For the record, I don’t think you should be shot, and if you think this counts as “defending” you, you should think again, since I also think that what you wrote is indefensible.

74. Y’know, I disagree with Charles frequently, and in this post I have various points of disagreement, but starting to read the comments, it seems to me that quite a few are way out of line. They’re nothing but ad hominem: personal attacks.
    Those violate the posting rules, in my view. Disagree with Charles all you like, but serious versions of “Charles sucks and is ruining the site” aren’t discussions of substance or issues, but are literal ad hominems. People engaging in them should, in my view, get a warning that another iteration will result in banning.
    Those who don’t like this stie for what it is, I’d think, don’t lack a shortage of other sites with views less offensive to their delicate sensibilities.
    Naturally, my view on this is just that of another commenter; but there it is.

75. Wow — who needs the “I hate Charles” blog when a post like this creates such an easy target.
    Like so much of Charles writing, it is largely fact-free and incorporates clearly wrong assumptions.
    A targeted strategy by Israel of attacking Hezbollah military targets would make some sense, but it is a fantasy to describe the current events in that manner. Israel has chosen to respond to a small attack by Hezbollah on a military target with a massive attack against Lebanon itself — there is very little effort to counter-attack only Hezbollah.
    The simple answer to ending the current violence between Israel and Hezbollah is to degrade Hezbollah to the point where Israel can hand the keys to the Lebanese army, giving the government full sovereignty over its country.
    Excuse me, but the Israelis are attacking both the Lebanese country and the Lebanese army at the moment, and uniting the Lebanese with Hezbollah rather than isolating it from the remainder of Lebanon. Funny how you managed to skip over that part in writing this drivel.
    And “degrade” Hezbollah by aerial bombing? That is a joke — care to be more specific as to how that will happen? Why, we could use the same tactic in Iraq — “degrade” the insurgency by aerial bombing — how did we manage to overlook this wonderful tactic? Do you think when you write this stuff?
    The attack on Lebanon is akin to the earlier attack on Gaza — a response to a guerilla attack on a military target with a generalized attack on the civilian infrastructure of the neighboring territory. What is going on here is collective punishment to terrorize Arabs in the neighboring countries to turn against Hamas or Hezbollah, or else face Israeli terror.
    If wars of the type advocated by Charles worked, then the problems in the Middle East would have been solved decades ago. It no wonder that conservatives like Charles are no longer able to get anything right about wars, (i.e., when and how to fight them).

76. It truly baffles me that he has so many staunch defenders.
    On my reading the comments were not defences of Chomsky, but attacks on a decidedly thuggish suggestion of Charles Bird’s. It really isn’t the same thing.

77. I wrote in an earlier comment thread that Israel is doing the work that the Lebanese army should be doing but cannot. The simple answer to ending the current violence between Israel and Hezbollah is to degrade Hezbollah to the point where Israel can hand the keys to the Lebanese army, giving the government full sovereignty over its country.
    I find this frustrating, because it’s very easy to understand that Israel is not, or not merely, degrading Hezbollah, but also degrading the Lebanese government, military, economy, and civilian infrastructure, by, for instance, attacking major cities that provide no support for Hezbollah and have held a predominantly anti-Hezbollah sentiment (such as Beirut). That’s not a polemic or a condemnation, it’s just what’s happening.
    It’s frustrating because that’s not the sort of information you’ll only find from partisan or agenda-driven sources, and therefore not necessarily trust or hear; it’s widely reported enough that just glancing at the headlines everyday should give at least some sense of it.
    I’m not closed to the possibility that these factors are directly related to the degradation of Hezbollah. I want to hear thoughts about it. Yet this post just seems to presume from the start that something straightforward is happening in Lebanon; it forgoes any actual analysis of, or even reference to, the facts of the matter here.

78. Gary, you’re a beautiful dude.
    It truly baffles me why Charles has such staunch defenders. But in your case, Gary, I figure it’s like the ACLU going to bat in the Skokie case. And that’s a beautiful thing in its own way.
    Still, I wish you’d give up that “Those who don’t like this site for what it is” stuff, which has a lot too much of the ring of your “it is what it is” refrains.
    Yeah, I like this site “for what it is”. That’s perfectly consistent with liking some parts more than others, and with wanting “what it is” in the future to be different from “what it is” today.
    “What it is” is not some sort of eternal, unchangeable essence. The site can change, and will change, for better or for worse. I’m advocating that it change in one direction, i.e. by dropping Charles Bird from the list of posters.
    After that change, “what it is” will be different, and I’ll like it for “what it is”. Even more.
    Or does liking something “for what it is” force you to defend a changeless status quo for ever?

79. “I find this frustrating, because it’s very easy to understand that Israel is not, or not merely, degrading Hezbollah, but also degrading the Lebanese government, military, economy, and civilian infrastructure, by, for instance, attacking major cities that provide no support for Hezbollah and have held a predominantly anti-Hezbollah sentiment (such as Beirut).”
    The problem is that Hezbollah is not strictly distinguishable from Lebanon. Hezbollah is in Lebanon, it acts from Lebanon, it is supplied through Lebanese trade channels and is otherwise intimately connected to Lebanon. That is why ideally Lebanon would go through the trouble to remove Hezbollah from its borders.

80. I’m afraid it’s too much of a job for me to run through this thread, commenting on the stuff that I think is variously correct, incorrect, or in between; there’s too much.
    An almost random point or two, while leaving many important points unrebutted:
    radish: “Let’s all pretend guerillas operate just like regular armies and everything will be peachy.”
    Hezbollah aren’t “guerillas”; I have no idea where you got that notion, but it’s entirely wrong. They’re a key part of the government, and they are a professional militia, as well as a police force, with formidable regular military capabilities that stand up well against the Israeli Defense Forces, one on one. They bear no relationship whatever to a guerilla force, nor have they ever operated as one. They do, indeed, operate as a regular army, and always have, which is why they did so well during the civil war.
    Switching topics, speaking again only as a commenter, I also have no problem with posters being banned from calling for the deaths of people not convicted of a crime and sentenced to the death penalty in a court of law.
    Andrew: “Assuming Hezbollah’s leadership and a majority of its combat power is all located in southern Lebanon (something that, even if it was true when this began, is unlikely to have remained so)….”
    It absolutely was not previously true. Hezbollah has been shagging assets away all over, including Beirut, for many years; this is a key part of the problem.
    The problems of dealing with Hezbollah today, whether by Israel, UN forces of some sort, including the U.S., or whomever, are epitomized by what happened the last time the U.S. went into Lebanon to guarantee stability and order; we became sucked into the civil war, suffered massive losses in terrorist attacks from Hezbollah (yeah, the guys in Lebanon, not from Saudi Arabia), and Reagan immediately cut-and-ran.
    The problems of subduing/eliminating Hezbollah are similar to those of dealing with the Shi’ite militias in Iraq.
    No, I don’t know what the “solution” is, either.
    “Southern Lebanon is heavily mined and Hezbollah knows the ground very well. A major Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon would suffer significant casualties as soon as they crossed the border.”
    Absolutely right. And instead, for now, they’re trying to use air power, and thus the inevitable problems of “collateral damage” in killing civilians, and despite best and strenuous efforts, inevitably making mistakes, as well.
    (They also otherwise appear to be engaging in an effort to “persuade” the Lebanese government by “punishing” them by hitting Lebanese military, and perhaps commercial, targets, though the latter remains unclear just now; regardless, this strikes me as entirely cock-eyed and wrongheaded and entirely stupid and tragic; if there’s a good argument for this strategy working, I’ve not yet run into it.)
    Francis:

    the missiles that Iran has delivered to Hezbollah … imperils the lives of two million Israelis.
    now that’s an abuse of the English language. 2 million israelis may be within range of the missiles, but it is most certainly not the case that the lives of ALL of them are imperilled.

    This is a pointless semantic argument, but “imperiled” is perfectly correct usage here. If I wave a gun at a crowd of people they’re all, individually, imperiled, even though I only have six bullets. That I can’t slaughter all of them doesn’t mean that each one isn’t “imperiled,” or threatened, or in danger. Sheesh.
    Similarly, Israel is imperiling most everyone in Lebanon at the moment.
    Hilzoy: “About the chemical plants: the analysis I’ve seen (can’t recall where) suggests that Hezbollah’s rockets (esp. the Katyushas) are too imprecise to target the chemical plants, or anything else specific”
    They’d have to get lucky, but they have more than enough rockets to blanket the area and likely score hits if they try; it’s a grave danger.
    Charles: “Whether those are grounds for treason or not, I haven’t investigated.”
    Charles, what can I say about calling for someone to be shot, first, and then saying you’ve not “investigated” the actual grounds? Boggle.
    A “”a reasoned and persuasive argument as to why Chomsky should have been put before a firing squad and shot,” but you “haven’t investigated” “whether those are grounds for treason or not.”
    This is utterly irresponsible, and while I think attacks on your person should, like attacks on any commenter/person here, remain out of bounds, I certainly can’t argue with anyone who is appalled by your irresponsible and pointless rhetoric.

81. “a pursuasive argument as to why Chomsky should have put before a firing squad and shot (and add Jane Fonda for a 2-fer)”
    “….whether those are grounds for treason or not I haven’t investigated.”
    This is a heck of a time to START the investigation. After me and the boys already broke open the jail and hauled Chomsky and Fonda out to the edge of town and gave them what-fer. Plus we burned their barns down and slaughtered the livestock.
    I think I’ve seen this movie: “The Ox-Bow Incident”. Oddly, Henry FONDA was one of the recipients of conservative mob action in that one. Seems to me Anthony Quinn got strung up, too, but I think that killing had a bit of Mexican illegal status to it.
    I hate it when mobs walk away and head home for dinner after finding out the guys they just strung up hadn’t even been investigated yet. Makes me feel kind of sheepish. Can I get my rope back?
    Boo Radley for President. Now there was a guy!
    Ya know, my grandfather (whom I loved like a grandfather) used to say that Martin Luther King should be shot.
    And then he was. Shows you the power of positive thinking.

82. Sebastian: That is why ideally Lebanon would go through the trouble to remove Hezbollah from its borders.
    And that is surely why (as was discussed on a better thread than this) ideally Israel would not be acting – as they are – to weaken the Lebanese government and strengthen Hezbollah. War on Lebanon can only make Hezbollah politically stronger and the Lebanese government politically weaker. Yet that’s what Israel’s doing.

83. That is why ideally Lebanon would go through the trouble to remove Hezbollah from its borders.
    well, now Lebanon will be lucky if it can provide electricity and water to its people.

84. I think we are alll agreed here ( Mr. Holdsclaw apart) that targeting Lebanon’s government and commercial assets for whatever reason is stupid & shortsighted, even taking into account what marginal military benefit might accrue from this policy.
    Olmert needs to ren in his Air Force. But does he have the cojones to do it?

85. What Chomsky did during the Vietnam War was on par with what Fonda did, again assuming that what he said and where he said it was accurate. Whether those are grounds for treason or not, I haven’t investigated.
    You haven’t investigated. And yet not having investigated the incident in question–by your own admission–you nevertheless feel comfortable saying that if it’s true, “there is also a reasoned and persuasive argument as to why Chomsky should have been put before a firing squad and shot”. Did you actually /think/ about this and whether it helped advance any productive discussion on the new ME crisis, or did you just throw it in to satisfy the lunacy quota you thought necessary to get it front-paged on Redstate?
    But never mind–you’re just “playing his own rhetoric back”. That makes it all in good fun.
    A plea to the collective: I have no problem whatsoever with there being principled conservative voices on this blog. Charles is not one, and you are not obligated to give him a platform for regurgitating this crap when he crossposts all of it to Redstate anyway. Let it go up there where it belongs.

86. First: find a set of bloglinks a little more, umm, -representative- of outstanding opinion: citing obsessive warfloggers like Charles Krauthammer or Josh Trevino about “what to do” (or “what Israel should do”) in Lebanon scuppers your arguments from the get-go.
    Whose “outstanding opinion”, Jay? At least in name only, this blog is supposed to represent a spectrum of opinion, not just those you agree with. I do read a range of opinions, but whom I select for a post is my business.
    However much however large a segment of Lebanon’s public might dislike/distrust Hezbollah – it is a safe bet that they dislike/distrust Israel even more: and the notion that “… Israel …doing the work that the Lebanese army should be doing but cannot.” will do anything other than spark anger, resentment and hatred in the public mind is, imho, foolish wishful-thinking…
    So, if I understand your logic, because Israel is doing the dirty work of degrading Hezbollah, therefore the Lebanese must be really, really angry about getting their country back? The fact is that they are too weak to do it themselves. The Lebanese ambassador to the UN was on Chris Matthews yesterday and admitted that very thing. Another sovereign nation, Iran, is meddling in Lebanese affairs by financially propping up this Islamist militia to the tune of $240 to $480 million per year. I suggest that if anger is the emotion the Lebanese are feeling, then it is misplaced if directed at Israel. It should be directed at the Iranian mullahs who have (at least) tacitly approved the attacks.
    I am surprised that Charles would show such overt comtempt for the rule of law.
    Where did I show any such thing, lily? Please point to where I’ve advocated going against the rule of law.
    One other general comment. I don’t think Israel’s objective should be to “destroy” Hezbollah. Because a reasoned and persuasive argument can be made, doesn’t mean that I’m making it, just to be extra clear. The word I used was “degrade”, which is probably the best that Israel can do.
    Not only is Charles showing no concern whatsoever about “collateral damage” from Israel’s actions (you know, dead people, destroyed homes and businesses, etc., etc.), but there is not even any sign of concern for whether Israel is actually accomplishing what he thinks they should be doing.
    Israel has been attacked and they are within international protocols to defend themselves, Blar. They are also bound by the Geneva Conventions to minimize civilian casualties as much as practicable. I hope they are doing that very thing. Hezbollah is doing the equivalent of using civilians as human shields when they fire rockets from apartment buildings and otherwise launch attacks from civilian centers. They are even more responsible for the deaths of civilians because they are the ones doing the real endangering. The fault also lies with the Lebanese government because it is a failed state that is unable to enforce the sovereignty of its borders.
    Is there any reason to think that the “Saudi Party of God”, which is doubtless Sunni, has anything to do with the “Party of God” operating in Lebanon, whose links are mostly Shiite?
    There are no Shiites in Saudi Arabia, paging? Why are the prime suspects of Khobar Towers residing in Iran?
    Andrew,
    Trevino also made similar comments to the effect that Israel would have to isolate south Lebanon, blocking avenues of escape, in order to succeed. Roggio mentioned that there have been some reserve call-ups, but not in large numbers. If the Israelis made a more serious ground incursion, yes, they would be need more personnel and, yes, would be exposed. But if they don’t, they’re exposed anyway, perhaps more so if Hezbollah is perceived to have prevailed. As I wrote, this is a high-stakes deal and it looks like both sides are staying on their respective tracks.
    Hil,
    I didn’t read your “Little List” post until after I hit the “post” button. There aren’t a lot of good options. I suggest that, without the Syrian influence there was in the past, the “permissive environment” will be tougher to achieve if the Israelis can prepare that environment for the Lebanese army. I agree with this statement made by 3GB: “On the other hand, I would definitely support US military assistance (money, arms, equipment, even a few SF trainers) to the Lebanese Army, if that army was engaging Hezbollah.” But I don’t think this could happen until Hezbollah is sufficiently degraded. According to the CIA Factbook, Lebanese military expenditures were $540.6 million in 2004 which, at worst, is only 2¼ higher than what Hezbollah gets from Iran.

87. So, if I understand your logic, because Israel is doing the dirty work of degrading Hezbollah, therefore the Lebanese must be really, really angry about getting their country back?

    No doubt they’re busy as we speak preparing the candy and flowers to welcome their Israeli liberators.

88. Catsy: Charles is not one, and you are not obligated to give him a platform for regurgitating this crap when he crossposts all of it to Redstate anyway.
    The only reason for keeping Charles Bird was Edward_’s assertion that if Charles left Edward would go.
    Edward_ has gone, it seems – and I miss him – so is there any good reason to retain Charles?
    Andrew, Von, and Sebastian are all principled conservative voices, well worth having as regular posters, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. Charles… isn’t.

89. I miss Edward_, too.
    (But that’s an ad hominem remark).

90. Hezbollah aren’t “guerillas”; I have no idea where you got that notion, but it’s entirely wrong.

    No it’s not. It’s not even half wrong — maybe 17% at most (oh and pedantry isn’t always constructive).
    If you feel that Hizbollah can’t be considered guerillas (in addition to being a political party, police force, smugglers’ guild, military intelligence agency, fraternity or any of various other things) then presumably you have a twenty-words-or-fewer definition of “guerilla” which clearly excludes Hizbollah but clearly includes, say the PLA Chinese Red Army circa late 30s.
    I’m perfectly happy to admit when I’m mistaken and even happier when I can isolate points of disagreement with people whose opinions I respect, so I’m looking forward to finding out which it is this time.

91. “War on Lebanon can only make Hezbollah politically stronger and the Lebanese government politically weaker.”
    This is as simplistic and reductionist, and partially wrong, as would be writing “War on Lebanon can only make Hezbollah politically weaker and the Lebanese government politically stronger.”
    Back in reality, warring on Hezbollah, and also hitting other Lebanese targets, has both effects. Which will come out stronger remains to be seen. It’s going to depend on specifics, trends, and the law of unknown consequences.
    I realize that that’s entirely vague, and not that useful. I could simply make up assertions about what I “know” the results are going to be, based on my prejudices and psychic abilities, but I figure those slots are more than filled.
    Charles: “I suggest that if anger is the emotion the Lebanese are feeling, then it is misplaced if directed at Israel.”
    Regardless of what people “should” feel, people feel what they feel. Instructing them that their feelings, whatever they might be — and we don’t exactly have Lebanese opinion polling in hand as yet, and inevitably, results will, however accurate or inaccurate, obviously be mixed — is pointless and unhelpful.
    “Where did I show any such thing, lily? Please point to where I’ve advocated going against the rule of law.”
    I believe it’s that whole advocating people be shot before investigating thing, Charles.
    “Roggio mentioned that there have been some reserve call-ups, but not in large numbers.”
    That’s correct; as of early this morning it was three brigades, but I’ve not had time to update yet this afternoon.
    If possible, Israel wants to avoid even a quick ground thrust into Lebanon; the area is immensely heavily mined and well-prepared, and losses would inevitably be heavy. Which isn’t to say that they might not do it, if they feel it’s the least bad choice. I don’t know what the odds are just now; probably at least 60-40 against, or more, but as I’m not privy to their thinking, I’m really not in a position to say.
    “Hil,
    I didn’t read your ‘Little List’ post until after I hit the ‘post’ button.”
    That’s a shame. Obviously you are under no obligation, but I’d suggest that it would be both useful to having productive discussion of your posts and comments and thoughts here, and respectful to the other bloggers, and to the commenters here (who seem to be generally far more invested in ObWi than you are), to make the effort to read the relevant prior posts on a topic, before composing your own, on many occasions.
    Such a policy would be apt to lessen your being chewed up quite so much, and, again, demonstrating respect for what everyone else here has already said, would also, I think, be helpful. To earn respect, people have to, of course, give respect. If you don’t care to even bother to read what other people have said, why should they in turn care what you have to say?
    And, no, I’m not saying you have to study every comment before posting; I’m just saying that as a general rule, at least reading the other posts from your other posters, would be a good start.
    On your last point, the Lebanese Army isn’t well equipped. I saw an estimate of assets yesterday, and it was fairly pathetic. About 34 helicopters (some of which have now been destroyed), no fixed wing craft, 4 shoulder-fired AA missiles, and a few hundred obsolete APCs (according to one report, at least one of which was partially made of wood) and a smattering of tanks and some artillery).

92. JFTR, I took the Chomsky line in the sense CB I think describes it – if Chomsky’s logic (Hizbullah is a good thing) makes sense, having the state shoot its enemies’ supporters makes sense. If I thought for a second that CB would look with anything but horror on a report that Chomsky and Fonda had been rounded up by the govt and summarily executed, I would be appalled at his statement.
    On the other hand, I think of plenty of what seem to me cogent colorful arguments which will in all likelihood lead to people taking offense and I repress them out of consideration for the conversation and my place in it – I can only suggest CB do the same.

93. Me and the boys down at the saloon vote to keep Charles on board.
    Perhaps agreement could be reached that Andrew could get a cursory look at Charles’ posts before they go out the door and he could red pencil the red meat Kim il Dong stuff and the let’s-execute-the-Left comments.
    Better idea. Charles could post first at HOCB and get the hate out of the way with suggestions as to the hateable bits and then take the show over here.
    Otherwise, Charles isn’t so bad. Tyson’s not a bad boxer either, but the ear-biting seems a little gratuitous.
    Of course, if Charles stops his stooping then I’ll stop my sarcastic “stooping” and all we’ve have around here is a lot of sober talk about how we’re not quite sure what the heck to do about the mess in the Middle East.
    What fun would that be? I’d have to go over to Redstate to get my heart started and that would last approximately 14 words before Moe Lane banned me for inciting open debate.

94. “we’d have…”
    I make mistakes. Which is self-inflicted ad hominum.

95. “…then presumably you have a twenty-words-or-fewer definition of ‘guerilla’ which clearly excludes Hizbollah but clearly includes, say the PLA Chinese Red Army circa late 30s.”
    If you’d argued that at one time, decades ago, Hezbollah had had aspects of a guerilla force, I wouldn’t take issue.
    Similarly, one could say that of the U.S. Army, when they were fighting against the Redcoats.
    One could even claim that U.S. Special Forces, from the tradional Green Berets, to many forms of current Special Operations, take on aspects of being guerillas.
    That doesn’t mean that it’s an accurate statement to contemporaneously say “the U.S. Army is a guerilla army.”
    Definitions? First stop at Google’s answers.com link:

    A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids. Hezbollah hasn’t operated in “occupied territory” since the end of the civil war and/or the Israeli withdrawal; even during the civil war, they overwhelmingly operated on the borders of their own territory, and during the Israeli occupation, on the borders of their territory against the SLA.
    Which is exactly the point I was trying to make. Hezbollah does not operate as a force fighting occupiers, in the midst of the sea of people. They fight purely as a regular force in modern times.
    Thus: not guerrilas in any meaningful or useful sense.

96. I’d have to go over to Redstate to get my heart started and that would last approximately 14 words before Moe Lane banned me for inciting open debate.
    But they’re not about open debate, they’re about killin’ islamofascists and hatin’ democrats, getting the two mixed up from time to time.*
    *I exaggerate, of course.

97. Crap; blockquotes begone.

98. John: “I make mistakes. Which is self-inflicted ad hominum.”
    So you didn’t mean to write “sarcastic schtupping”?

99. gary: when iran develops (a) nukes and (b) rockets which can reliably reach israel and (c) the capacity to place the nuke in the rocket, THEN 2 million israelis will be imperilled by the rocket forces of an enemy, because all 2 million could be killed by a rocket attack. (see, eg, S.Holsclaw.)
    to conflate the ability of an enemy to cause minor damage to a large group of people with the ability of an enemy to destroy a large group of people in a single strike is not helpful, especially given the attention in the last few years to the very definition of “WMD”.
    one last thing: getting chastized by you on the grounds that i’m making an overly semantic argument is a little rich. mote / beam and all that.

100. Charles, in seriousness, I’ll stomach repeated links to Krauthammer, Tacitus and the Moose. I can take those with the appropriate dollop of salt. But ObWi is not RedState, and it angers the kitty when you call for firing squads whether it is a mere rhetorical flourish or not.
     In a way, such verbiage only makes sense if you are actively trying to anger your readership. I want delve into psychoanalysis to ponder why this might be, but I think I’d join the calls to either have you cut it out or for you to be cut out of future ‘contributions’ to this blog.

101. Pooh, another possibility is that he writes the pieces for RedState and doesn’t think at all before he reposts them here about whether there’s anything in them that might be inappropriate for ObWi.

102. The problem is that Hezbollah is not strictly distinguishable from Lebanon. Hezbollah is in Lebanon, it acts from Lebanon, it is supplied through Lebanese trade channels and is otherwise intimately connected to Lebanon.
     While it is not strictly distinguishable from Lebanon, I think it is pragmatically distinguishable from Lebanon. I mean, yeah, the fact that they are a political party and social organization besides a militia complicates things a lot, but in and of itself I don’t see how that explains what I described. Destroying the Lebanese infrastructure, economy, and government, rather than the infrastructure within Lebanon directly surrounding Hezbollah (‘surrounding’ in a not strictly geographic sense), is, to be sure, impossible with absolute precision, but the current program seems to have minimal precision. And again, if the goal is or ought to be encouraging the rest of Lebanon to internally reduce Hezbollah, I don’t see how attacking that ‘rest of Lebanon’ helps.
     That is why ideally Lebanon would go through the trouble to remove Hezbollah from its borders.
     Sure, I agree; ideally all kinds of totally impossible stuff would happen. Practically speaking, I can’t imagine why the other parties in Lebanon would choose to restart the civil war there, the sort of thing which, incidentally, might in and of itself have led to attacks on Israel and/or Israeli intervention. Abolition of Hezbollah as an autonomous military entity as a goal for a few years down the line, sure, but a mere year after independence? Unrealistic.

103. The thing I like about these threads is that it brings all of these newer folks into the mix. The oldtimers just shrug and say ‘that’s Charles’
     The other thing reading thru the thread is Sebastian’s comment. In labeling this an ‘otherwise excellent post”, does this mean that you agree with everything except the treason thing?

104. Francis, being endangered is not the same as being killed. Claiming that it is is wrong.
     If someone wrote that Hezbollah was threatening to kill all Israelis, you would be perfectly correct to point out that they could not.
     When someone writes that Hezbollah is endangering each Israeli — which is precisely what “imperiling” is — they are perfectly correct.
     I don’t know how to make this any more clear.
     Imperil:

     im·per·il (ĭm-pĕr’əl) pronunciation
     tr.v., -iled or -illed, -il·ing or -il·ling, -ils or -ils.
     To put into peril. See synonyms at endanger.

     en·dan·ger (ĕn-dān’jər) pronunciation
     tr.v., -gered, -ger·ing, -gers.
     1. To expose to harm or danger; imperil.
     2. To threaten with extinction.

     It doesn’t mean “to cause extinction.”
     And it’s not very “minor” damage when it’s your mom that is killed, or your brother with his leg blown off. Whether it’s the Israeli DFs so endangering “a large group of people” in Lebanon, or Hezbollah doing it to the same in Israel.
     Minimizing the fear and danger and tragedy on either side isn’t helpful. If I pointed out how small a percentage of Lebanese have been killed or injured, I’d be being a real jerk, because that misses key points. People in Lebanon and Israel are in shelters and fleeing because of the danger, not because of the odds.

105. Does Charles stay up late at night masturbating furiously to the idea that finally, finally some leftist might get hanged, shot or gassed? Or is it just more of a daydreaming thing? A pleasant, refreshing thought to get him past the post-lunch doldrums?
     The only people — literally, THE ONLY PEOPLE — that I have ever seen seriously quote Noam Chomsky for any non-linguistics topic in the blogosphere are: Charles Bird, and some other right-winger whose name escapes me at the moment.
     And the spectacle of a man my approximate age, who cannot POSSIBLY have a single meaningful memory of the Vietnam War, refighting it by dredging up Jane effing Fonda, for pete’s sake, is simply amazing. I mean, my FATHER doesn’t much care for Fonda, but that’s because he spent several years trudging through the jungle getting shot at. (And, for the record, he’s a Democrat.)

106. Pooh, another possibility is that he writes the pieces for RedState and doesn’t think at all before he reposts them here about whether there’s anything in them that might be inappropriate for ObWi.
     Probably the most likely. Which is another argument for him not continuing to post here in my mind. Not that he writes for RedState, but that the/a ‘thoughtful conservative voice’ can’t or won’t think about the differing obligations of the two forums (fora?)
     And, as is often the case, the kernel of merit in his post is lost due to BD’s overreach into the polemical – on it’s face the idea that the IDF should degrage Hez until Lebanon can deal with them is not crazy (the conclusions Charles draws from that premise I find extremely disagreeable, but as a starting point for discussion it’s not bad. Of course, as has been noted exhaustively, he has a way of extinguishing the conversation before it starts.)

107. Incidentally, more Hezbollah handiwork:

     Hezbollah rocket attacks on the northern town of Nazareth killed two Israeli Arab children, brothers aged 3 and 9, on Wednesday afternoon, bringing to 15 the death toll from rocket strikes since the crisis in Lebanon began a week ago.
     Another 12 people sustained light wounds in the attack, and were evacuated to the Italian Hospital in the town.
     The two siblings, Rabia Abed Taluzi and his older brother Mahmoud, were killed by a direct hit from a rocket in the yard of their family home on their way to visit their uncle in a nearby house, the Israel Defense Forces said.

     And, of course, I could list a long list of tragic Lebanese casualties from Israeli fire, and a shorter, but no less tragic, list of other Israeli casualties from Hezbollah fire.
     It’s all horrible. The rest is detail.

108. Though I will agree with Gary that responses such as the first graf of Phil’s, we could also do without. Two way street kids.

109. Not that it matters in the court of Charles, but on Democracy Now last week that arch-traitor Noam said that Hezbollah’s actions in attacking Israel were wildly irresponsible. He was obviously thinking a couple of months ago that Hezbollah’s weapons served them as a deterrent against Israeli aggression, but obviously Hezbollah had other ideas.
     Don’t kick Charles out–I think it’s good having this little window into that particular POV. I almost never bother visiting Red State. When he says something idiotic people can tear him apart or alternatively, they can just smile and move on.

110. You said that there was a “a reasoned and persuasive argument as to why Chomsky should have been put before a firing squad and shot (and add Jane Fonda to make it a two-fer).” This is not just “playing his own rhetoric back”; it’s adding in a recommendation that he be shot.
     I think not, Hil. That a reasoned and persuasive argument can be made, does not mean that I endorse it. That’s how Chomsky argues, which was my point. He has exactly that same deniability regarding his statements about Hezbollah.
     I find this frustrating, because it’s very easy to understand that Israel is not, or not merely, degrading Hezbollah, but also degrading the Lebanese government, military, economy, and civilian infrastructure, by, for instance, attacking major cities that provide no support for Hezbollah and have held a predominantly anti-Hezbollah sentiment (such as Beirut).
     You’re identifying two separate issues, TM. There is degradation occurring to Lebanese non-Hezbollah infrastructure, the extent of which is hard to measure in a fluid and fast-moving situation such as this. I don’t see Israel “attacking major cities”, but Hezbollah targets in major cities.

111. “I suggest that if anger is the emotion the Lebanese are feeling, then it is misplaced if directed at Israel.”
     Actually, BD: I was suggesting that when one lives in what is generally considered a non-combat zone (like Beirut, which until quite recently was -finally and thankfully -considered to be one [if however wishful]); the (quite logical) anger and resentment toward being bombed by high-tech munitions from the air just might be focused on those who, you know, are actually doing the bombing: in this case, the Israelis. I’m sure that a Lebanese civilian family who may have had their property damaged, or destroyed, or, tragically, had a family member injured or killed by Israeli bombs, might stop a moment to give some some weight to your argument that it really IS all Hezbollah’s fault, and their resentment of Israel is wildly misplaced – but you know, I really doubt it.
     But of course, I’m sure you can put up a blogpost at RedState that will make it all clear to them.

112. ” I don’t see Israel “attacking major cities”, but Hezbollah targets in major cities.”
     This is another distinguishing point between Hezbollah and Israel. When you say “Hezbollah attacks Haifa” you mean the whole city. Hezbollah doesn’t have accurate enough rockets to aim at anything small at that distance. When you say “Israel attacked Beruit” you really mean that they attacked a specific building found in the city of Beruit. Just another way the language obscures real moral distinctions.

113. Unfortunately, the whole “well we can fire at them because they hide in the general population” doesn’t go over very well with the innocent bystanders.
     Who do you think I’m going to be more ticked off at, the people “hiding in my neighborhood” shooting, or the people over-reacting in return and destroying my house and killing my family?
     I think the blow-back on this one will be immense.

114. Charles: “That a reasoned and persuasive argument can be made, does not mean that I endorse it.”
     Au contraire: absent any further qualification (like: it’s persuasive but wrong), that you find an argument persuasive means that you’re persuaded by it.

115. From the very beginning of Charles’s crossposting, I have said that he should make a choice as to his audience. There’s no point in having him post to Redstate when people who care about what he says could just go to redstate and see it (not, however, post comments to it, given the editors’ raging authoritarianism).
     But given that he apparently doesn’t read Obsidian Wings, and doesn’t seem to write his posts with Obsidian Wings in mind, is he really an appropriate poster for Obsidian Wings?

116. Charles–
     In the Chomsky quote, the “reasonable and persuasive line” expands upon his claim that it is “justified”:
     “”Hizbullah’s insistence on keeping its arms is justified… I think Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and [a] persuasive argument that they [the arms] should be in the hands of Hizbullah…”
     So if you are parrotting Chomsky’s usage, than what you are saying is that the extra-judicial killing is reasonable and persuasive, and indeed that you find it justified.
     If you now want to claim, after the fact, that you meant “it might persuade someone else but I don’t think it’s justified”, then you can no longer claim to be parrotting Chomsky.
     But then, no matter what the details of Chomsky’s position, your claim that you meant it was “reasonable and persuasive but you don’t endorse it” was never really…reasonable or persuasive.

117. Chas, how about just cut the ‘plausible deniability’ shtick and, you know, avoid saying that kind of stuff when you post here? Is it really that difficult to figure out what is going to offend a goodly portion of the commentariat? I mean one would almost think that we’ve been through this before.
     This been the nth go-around with this kind of thing, you’re eitherbeing willfully obtuse on this point, or you just don’t give a rip, neither one suggests you are doing either yourself or ObWi much of a service. You are clearly intelligent enough to know better, where you just some daffy loon, you wouldn’t be allowed to post on the front page in the first place.

118. Irregular? Check, unless you think that having a command structure makes an army “regular” even if it owes no allegiance to the nation state in which it’s based, and imports ordnance from elsewhere. Indigenous? Check. Small Bands? Check, though I’ll grant that small is relative and point out that I did mention the PLA for a reason. Occupied Territory? Well, I think the Sheiks would disagree with you both about how significant twenty years is, and about what’s “occupied” and what isn’t in that part of the world.
     So yes, Hizbollah’s history as a militia strikes me as a far better indicator of its nature and what it actually trains for than its “peacetime” activities or its use of up-to-date artillery. I think if Israel were stupid enough to actually re-occupy South Lebanon the switch back to a hit-and-run style would be pretty much instantaneous, don’t you? No tank battles (tanks? what tanks?), no flanking maneuvers, no insignia (do they even have insignia?), no pomp and circumstance. Plenty of cousins in black tshirts waiting to pick off the survivors when that truck hits that land mine though.
     In any event, what I was trying to get at was mostly that destroying Hizbollah’s visible military capacity isn’t meaningful in the larger scheme of things. They can melt into the sea of people plenty quick enough if it becomes necessary.

119. you really mean that they attacked a specific building found in the city of Beruit
     Sebastian, at the risk of being really really really snarky, was the WTC a specific building?

120. “I’m sure that a Lebanese civilian family who may have had their property damaged, or destroyed, or, tragically, had a family member injured or killed by Israeli bombs, might stop a moment to give some some weight to your argument that it really IS all Hezbollah’s fault, and their resentment of Israel is wildly misplaced – but you know, I really doubt it.”
     This is one of the many points where it’s entirely silly to speculate, given the vast number of quotes one can find in a minute on the internet of actual Lebanese saying, variously, both things.
     I’m inclined to think that the odds of more Lebanese being more pissed at Israel than at Hezbollah are quite reasonably high, but we know for a fact that a lot of Lebanese people take a mixed view, and others take more of a view in one direction, than another, depending upon their experience and predilection, and, of course, highly influenced by how they already felt about Hezbollah.
     There’s no shortage of actual Lebanese quoted on the web, is my primary point, so speculating abstractly is superfluous.
     I know it’s hopeless, but what has always driven me crazy about I/P — and now Lebanon, as well — is that practically everyone feels compelled to have an opinion, and an great many feel compelled to write “well, here’s what I think” comments and posts on blogs, without actually being particularly qualified by any knowledge beyond casually reading newspapers or seeing tv or hearing some radio reports.
     This is not remotely helpful.
     Random people’s opinions on the Congo would be similarly poorly or ill-informed, but being the Congo, most people don’t feel compelled to blather about a topic they generally at least realize they know little about.
     Switching topics, I suggest that now would be a good time for a fresh open thread, for less fraught discussions, and a chance to discuss a topic other than Charles Bird: Threat or Menace?

121. Does Charles stay up late at night
     I’d suggest that not only is the comment beginning with the above most likely in violation of some posting rule or other, but it would also be well below the taste threshold for OW. If we had one, or could agree on where to put it.
     Why is it that some of you are reacting to what you perceive as offensiveness with even more offensiveness, as if that’ll raise the bar somehow?

122. Slarti,
     I agree.

123. You know you’re in big trouble if I’m the voice of reason, Pooh.

124. Sorry, Pooh, but I see Charles send too many people off to their verbal deaths far too frequently to suggest to me that he’s nothing if not uncaring at best and bloodthirsty at worst, and I’m not going to sugarcoat that.
     This been the nth go-around with this kind of thing, you’re eitherbeing willfully obtuse on this point, or you just don’t give a rip, neither one suggests you are doing either yourself or ObWi much of a service.
     He thinks it’s funny. It stems from a very particularly frat-boy meanness. He probably still thinks calling people who blow a lay-up on the basketball court “fag” is funny, too.

125. Phil, I’m not disagreeing with you on substance, I think it’s an indefensible and frankly idiotic remark on his part. However, I am suggesting that you don’t respond to Charles’s violation of the posting rules with one of your own that is even more obviously over the line.

126. You know you’re in big trouble if I’m the voice of reason, Pooh.
     No way dude, you’re reasonable as often as any of us (with the exception of perhaps LJ or rilke…)
     I may have missed on update, but did you get the other eye done? How’d it go?

127. Why is it that some of you are reacting to what you perceive as offensiveness with even more offensiveness, as if that’ll raise the bar somehow?
     What, are we supposed to believe Charles is suddenly amenable to persuasion or reason on this matter?

128. Slarti: I agree. I can’t find it now, but: whoever wrote it, stop.
     Anyone else: Tacitus thinks that those of us who have criticized Charles in this thread are “might be inclined” to commit treason, “given the opportunity”.

129. Methinks Tacitus would gladly take part in a “night of the long knives” if given the opportunity.

130. Sebastian, your implication that Israel’s airstrikes are narrowly targeted (for any reasonable definition of narrow) does not hold up under scrutiny. You are essentially asserting that the only gun control that matters is hitting what you aim at, only you’re saying it with a straight face.
     Allow me to direct you to an editorial analysis dated 7 July, and you tell me whether you think the senior IDF officers quoted were just bluffing.

     Senior officers in the IDF say that the Lebanese government is responsible for the soldiers’ abduction. According to the officers, if the kidnapped soldiers are not returned alive and well, the Lebanese civilian infrastructures will regress 20, or even 50 years.

     Also third what Slarti said at 7:23. Charles may be okay with having fleas, but if you don’t lay down with him you won’t have to scratch.

131. Oh, as if anyone but Josh Trevino and a lot of addle-brained theocrats care what Josh Trevino thinks of much of anything.
     Aside from his poor skills at mind-reading, his bizarre lumping of everyone who took exception to Charles’ nonsense as “a leftist,” and his obsession with Rachel Corrie, I’ll not be condescended to be the likes of him. While I never served myself — I would’ve been a terrible soldier — my family has taken bullets for this country going back to the Civil War. I’ll not be accused of being a potential traitor by someone who got cashiered out for suffering from depression.

132. Phil: don’t do the Tac depression thing. It’s a horrible illness, and anyone who has it deserves better than to be snarked at.

133. “What, are we supposed to believe Charles is suddenly amenable to persuasion or reason on this matter?”
     I see a sudden parallelism to what’s going on east of the Mediterranean.

134. Haven’t we beaten this thing to death yet.
     Yes, Charles’ comment was boorish & stupid and he has been taken to the woodshed. Time to get back to the substance of his post.
     SHEESH.
     Its not like it was the worst thing a wingnut has ever posteed, y’know…

135. I have depression, hilzoy. Paxil, Prozac, Effexor, been there, done those. Someone calling me a potential traitor sacrifices his right to hide behind that shield.

136. Y’know, I’ve come to like this blog over the last few since I started visiting. So who’s this fuckwit ‘Charles’? Does he pollute an otherwise good site often? Jesus, citing Krauthammer as an ‘authority’ is practically a DSM-IV criterion for clinical idiocy.
     Don’t allow this twit to post anything more than a comment, please.

137. Gary Farber writes: “When someone writes that Hezbollah is endangering each Israeli — which is precisely what “imperiling” is — they are perfectly correct.”
     And yet, the reverse is just as true.
     Israel’s attacks are endangering 2.mumble million Lebanese.
     The targeting practices and claimed precision of Israel’s weapons is immaterial. They could all be killed, therefore, they are all endangered.
     And if you’re talking about weapons that are held but haven’t been used yet, Israel’s nukes surely trump the endangerment potential of a mere long-range missile.
     So I’m not quite certain what the point is in even claiming that 2 million Israelis are endangered. It’s a wash.

138. Ah, Phil, see what you’ve done? We’re going to need some construction adhesive and assorted clamps to get the posting rules back together again.

139. Hilzoy: Tacitus thinks that those of us who have criticized Charles in this thread are “might be inclined” to commit treason, “given the opportunity”.
     Oh, really? Charles, your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries.

140. Ah, Phil, see what you’ve done? We’re going to need some construction adhesive and assorted clamps to get the posting rules back together again.
     Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not bicker and argue over who killed who.

141. Rilkefan: “So you didn’t mean to write ‘sarcastic schtupping?’ ”
     How did what I do late at night become an issue here? In the kitchen, no less?
     I’ll have you know that I can reach an exquisite level of wryness while schtupping but I never cross the line into sarcastic parody.
     I suggest Jane and Charles and Noam and Al Capp return to their 1967 borders.

142. I am sick and tired, Slarti, of seeing me, and people I respect, called “traitors” each and every day that George W. Bush remains President, and I am sick and tired of the constant, casual catcalls of conservatives asking for people to be dragged out and hanged or shot. And if recent history has shown anything, it’s that nothing — nothing — is gained by being nice to these people. Nothing.
     I’ll go be mean to them somewhere else — that’s fine. Your blog, your rules, and I should know better. But someone needs to push their noses in their puddles of urine, and it needs to be done where the stain is.

143. “I have depression, hilzoy.”
     Sorry to hear that. Still I don’t find it makes your argument any more cogent. Tac’s statement is plenty criticizable (or mockable, or ignorable) without bringing in his personal history.
     (Uh, CB, there seems to be some confusion on either my part or several others’ – was I incorrect in stating above that you would be horrified at the scenario I described [throwing in some sort of court proceeding]?)

144. Phil: don’t do the Tac depression thing.
     It’s fine. I’m not the one it dishonors.

145. Gah. I followed hilzoy’s link. Bad mistake. It’s a rare person that can maintain total pomposity and bloodthirst at the same time. By the way, how do moonbats get their hands on simian feces anyway?

146. Phil, would you be ok with being called a potential traitor by a 4 star general who i sa winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor? If not, then the putative fact that Trevino was cashiered out of the Army really isn’t that relevant.
     That his fact-shy glossalia and and faux-classical&military persona
     demonstrate rich irony in “Lip service to patriotism does not override the historical record of deeds”, given the incredible (and, I fear, fatal) damage the modern Right has done to this country… — those *would be* relevant.

147. weren’t all these wingers recently going on about the cedar revolution and the wonderful people that made it happen?
     seems they now have no qualms when their ‘protest babes’ are blown to smithereens because suddenly they only factor into the equation as hesbolla supporters or, if they’re lucky, collateral damage…

148. “It’s fine. I’m not the one it dishonors.”
     Presuambly dishonoring is something generally to be opposed.

149. A lecture on honor from Mr. All Non-Conservatives Are Potential Traitors. Brilliant.
     I’ll wait while you page furiously through your thesaurus for a typically scintillating Josh Trevino response.

150. It’s fine. I’m not the one it dishonors.
     If only you understood that the same standard applies to the inexcusable accusations of treason you repeatedly hurl at your countrymen.

151. Tim: By the way, how do moonbats get their hands on simian feces anyway?
     Ebay.

152. Phil, would you be ok with being called a potential traitor by a 4 star general who i sa winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor?
     Brian, given my childhood, I’d probably snap a (non-sarcastic) salute and say, “Yes, sir!”

153. Jon H.:

     Gary Farber writes: “When someone writes that Hezbollah is endangering each Israeli — which is precisely what “imperiling” is — they are perfectly correct.”
     And yet, the reverse is just as true.

     Clearly when I wrote in the comment you are responding to that:

     And it’s not very “minor” damage when it’s your mom that is killed, or your brother with his leg blown off. Whether it’s the Israeli DFs so endangering “a large group of people” in Lebanon, or Hezbollah doing it to the same in Israel.
     Minimizing the fear and danger and tragedy on either side isn’t helpful. If I pointed out how small a percentage of Lebanese have been killed or injured, I’d be being a real jerk, because that misses key points. People in Lebanon and Israel are in shelters and fleeing because of the danger, not because of the odds.

     Obviously I was confused. Thanks for pointing out to me what I was clearly unaware of, Jon H.
     Which part of “Whether it’s the Israeli DFs so endangering ‘a large group of people’ in Lebanon,” was unclear to you? What part of “either side” should I have used other words for? Which part of emphasizing that if I dismissed Lebanese casualties I would be “be being a real jerk” was trouble understanding?

154. I’d like to second sglover’s remark:
     “Y’know, I’ve come to like this blog over the last few since I started visiting. So who’s this f—wit ‘Charles’? Does he pollute an otherwise good site often? Jesus, citing Krauthammer as an ‘authority’ is practically a DSM-IV criterion for clinical idiocy.
     Don’t allow this twit to post anything more than a comment, please.”
     That sounds about right.
     On the other hand, I think we can all get as vehement and pointed as needed without descending into obscenity.
     I’m totally with you on substance, Phil, but I’d drop the obscenity.
     For instance, it requires no obscenity to point out that some people are immune from being dishonored in the same way the the Sahara is immune from being deforested.

155. “Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not bicker and argue over who killed who.”
     That’s amusing, Jes, really it is, but I’m also reasonably sure that your displays of righteous indignation and moral superiority are no more likely to be saving any lives than the same from anyone else here in any direction.
     I could be wrong. Perhaps the more that people yell at each other on blogs, and insult each other, and demonstrate Morally Correct Wrath, the less shrapnel will hit anyone in the Mideast. Maybe it works that way.
     I’m inclined to suspect not, though.
     Phil, you’re clearly mad; understandable. Please take some deep breaths, and consider holding off on commenting for a while, perhaps. You’re a good guy, but you’re really crossing some lines, repeatedly, and the fact that someone else or elses have crossed the line first doesn’t justify it. So, yeah, what Slart said: we don’t need to re-enact Your Side Attacked First here, just because we’re discussing (ha!) the Mideast.
     Frankly, if someone had the power to shut down comments on this thread, I’d be about ready to suggest it. Walk away, people. Walk away if you can’t say something constructive, and not ad hominem. Whomever the target is. Ya want peace in the Mideast? Start at friggin’ home.

156. I suggest Jane and Charles and Noam and Al Capp return to their 1967 borders.
     Dunno about the others, but I bet Jane would be thrilled to return to her 1967 borders.

157. I’m not sure this is right:
     “Perhaps the more that people yell at each other on blogs, and insult each other, and demonstrate Morally Correct Wrath, the less shrapnel will hit anyone in the Mideast.
     I’m inclined to suspect not, though.
     [snip]
     Ya want peace in the Mideast? Start at friggin’ home.”
     I’ve got a different idea:
     Ya want peace in the Mideast? Make sure that the irresponsible war-mongers who dominated political discourse in the lead-up to the Iraq war are thoroughly discredited and no longer taken seriously.
     In the run up to Spring 2003, I went along with the national mood. And the national mood was facilitated by war-bloggers and their video-game, shoot-em-up ilk.
     So it was popular opinion that you sounded wacky if you weren’t all gung-ho for invasion, and you sounded wacky if you had any doubts. So I toed the line and kept my trap shut. And that didn’t go so well.
     You see, the fact is that public discourse has major consequences for war and peace. If we learned anything in the last six years, it is that.
     So, you know, maybe you’re right that this vocal push-back to the irresponsible war-bloggers is an impediment to peace in the Mideast. But I think that there’s just as good a chance that it’s helping out, by slowing down, even a little around the edges, another rush to war.

158. What is very clear to me is that expressing a dissenting opinion ought not count as giving aid and comfort to enemies. Let us not forget that the ink on the Constitution was not get dry before these were on the books. I think people should bear in mind that in any population there will be some distribution of authoritarian personalities, people for whom it seems reasonable that expressing a dissenting opinion counts as a crime against the state.

159. I bet Jane would be thrilled to return to her 1967 borders.
     [insert cliche about ruining my keyboard with suddenly-emitted coffee here]

160. I can’t imagine why, given such inclusive, rational and reasoned discoure, Swords Crossed didn’t work out for good Mr. Trevino. Incidentally, what are we to make of a post entitled “Against the Wall?” I’m unfamiliar enough with the bloodletting oevre to wonder if there is an implied ‘, you hippie’ there.
     Hil, I’m never getting that 10 minutes of my life back.

161. “If not, then the putative fact that Trevino was cashiered out of the Army really isn’t that relevant.”
     Do they have one of them fancy laser scanner thingees George was telling me about at that cashiering thing?
     It’s classy comments like that one that keep me coming back to ObiWi!
     And then right back out again…

162. I was hoping this thread would devolve into aimless humor but after popping over to the Tacitus link, I’ve learned some things:
     Charles Bird’s name is Paul. Hi, Paul. I’m John.
     Tacitus gets free medical care and disapproves of it.
     Shooting Noam Chomsky would be a “good start”. But I see no action. Tough talk, no action. It’s time for action. But we get nothing but empty codpieces from the lot. Bring it on. I tend toward the manic.
     Charles hasn’t even begun investigating Jane and Noam’s treason and claims he was merely posing a sly turnaround, but Tacitus believes he was literally calling for the execution of both. Charles has not yet corrected him.
     In which case, the last paragragh of my 11:39am comment on this thread becomes literal as well. Raise the number used, please.
     Is there a medication for tedium?
     Where are my subsidized groceries? When I get those, cancel all scheduled schtupping and let the executions begin.

163. ah, and now here’s Macallan.
     Yes–it was inevitable, the pattern always repeats.
     First Charles Bird says something gob-smackingly stupid.
     Then the commentariat jumps all over him.
     Then he says a few lame things in defense and gets his [gym-bag] handed to him.
     Then he runs home to his big brothers and complains that the bad old meanies are picking on him.
     And then we get little visits from Macallan and Tacitus and a few other grotesques with classical names (Epaminondas? Propertius? I forget).
     They all come over here to try to defend their little brother, who has long ago fled, weeping, back to the safety of Red State.
     Jesus–you know, it’s not a joke that Charles’ presence is seriously degrading the quality and utility of this site. It’s not a cliche or a tag-line. It’s just a verifiable fact.
     Get rid of him.

164. On topic:
     Djerejian, talking sense.
     http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/07/post_33.html
     a plea for sanity, and against the neo-cons.

165. Macallan, surely you’re familiar with the word “putative“? Ah, perhaps not.
     Well, that’s ok. I certainly wouldn’t want you to be exposed to nuance. It might just complicate your life, and inevitably trevino will be calling you a traitor.

166. the best, nay the most wonderful, enthralling, interesting aspect of reading commentary by Mr. Trevino (besides, of course, the long-winded and prolix nature of his authorship), is the more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone.
     In just about every Tac post that involves his political opponents, there are certain classic elements:
     pretension, condescension, and staggering ignorance.
     he’s limbaugh with a thesaurus. note that he posted on his eponymous website, where he could be sure to find his dittoheads cheering his erudite analysis, rather than here.
     and josh, since you’re reading this thread, maybe just maybe you should consider that the First Amendment provides a bulwark against a whole range of activities you’d like to be treasonous.

167. I said it a long time ago and I’ll repeat it today. Giving Bird rights to this blog was a huge mistake. He can’t help himself. He wants to be George Will but he’s really Ann Coulter.

168. Where exactly did I call for murder, Anarch?
     Political murder remains murder, Charles, even if you gussy it up with bullshit charges of treason. And I do, as usual, mean “bullshit” in the Frankfurtian sense: an allegation made with a disregard for the truth. [In your case, an explicitly acknowledged disregard for the truth, which is just mind-boggling.] If you don’t like the charge, don’t spew the bullshit — whether in the initial allegation or the subsequent implausible denials.

169. IIRC, whether or not the Lebanonese government wanted Hezbollah in the country depended on who was running the Lebanonese government. When a pro-Syrian government was in charge, the answer was ‘yes.’ When an anti-Syrian government was in charge, the answer was ‘no.’
     I have a question which, in this specific instance, is now academic, though it might be useful to assess ‘what else Israel could have done, and should have done.’
     The question is, how could Lebanon, or Israel, have gotten rid of Hezbollah without a large military operation started by someone else?
     There’s a lot of criticism of Israel’s bombing civilians, even by people who agree Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and that launching rockets into Israel is a bad thing. I would really be interested in hearing what the critics think should have been done instead.
     What if an armed force had simply shown up and just started packing up Hezbollah’s offices, file cabinets (and, oh yeah, it’s weapons caches), put the lot into trucks, and bussed it out to, say, Syria (along, presumably, with Hezbollah’s personnel) and only used force as needed to enforce the eviction?
     There’s no way, I think, that even that kind of operation wouldn’t lead to a general conflagration, because I see no possibility of Hezbollah’s not resisting eviction with all its might. And since, as has tirelessly been pointed out, Hezbollah had embedded itself in and among civilians, I don’t see how that kind of operation wouldn’t also, inevitable, have wound up killing civilians.

170. Okay, don’t walk away. Run away! (From this thread.)
     Save yourselves! Save yourselves while you can!
     Avoid the fireball!
     If you post to this thread again, the terrorists win. And you must hate America.
     Think of the children.

171. I don’t see Israel “attacking major cities”, but Hezbollah targets in major cities.
     In addition to radish’s Haaretz link, we have, for instance, this:
     “Early Sunday, Israeli warplanes bombed the Beirut suburbs for hours.”
     “A Lebanese civilian convoy was hit near the coastal town of Tyre after fleeing the border village of Marwaheen, resulting in 16 deaths. … The villagers left after the Israeli military told them to evacuate over a loudspeaker, Reuters reported.”
     Now, I’m not suggesting this is the deliberate targetting of civilians as such, but it strikes me as plainly indiscriminate.
     Dunno about the others, but I bet Jane would be thrilled to return to her 1967 borders.
     From downtown… it’s good!

172. So, Gary by posting again, am I validating Tac’s thesis?

173. Your blog, your rules

     Erm, eh?
     I’d suggest that it’s your blog as much as it is mine (in terms of property: not at all), and is this the direction you want it to go in? You think that perhaps it’s best to allow the behavior of others to dictate your own?
     Of course, whatever choice you make is completely up to you. I’d not presume to instruct, but I do presume to pose the question.

174. Oh, and happy anniversary, Phil. Taking the night off to…well, to appreciate your relationship with your significant other is, without snark, probably the best gift you could give to your S.O., yourself, and the rest of us combined.
     As for the offensive stuff, may it flow off you like water off a duck’s back.

175. Without wishing to unduly lengthen this thread, and having nothing specific to say that others have not said earlier, please add my name to the list of those requesting that CB be removed as a regular poster on this site. Those who like his kind of “stuff” (an office-friendly euphemism, I trust) will know where to find it, and the rest of us can be spared these gratuitous insults to our intelligence, our patriotism, and our collective sense of decency.
     (Andrew, on the other hand, is a real find.)

176. A plea to the collective: I have no problem whatsoever with there being principled conservative voices on this blog.
     There is no such thing as a principled conservative.
     That is why ideally Lebanon would go through the trouble to remove Hezbollah from its borders.
     Considering that Hezbollah is the political party of the Shiite and that the Shiites are anywhere from 30 to 40 % of the Lebanese Population, good luck.
     Demographics can really be a bitch! unless you’re willing to commit genocide…

177. Ditto everything.
     By which I mean CB is a Redstate poster who Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V’s his posts there here. Obsidian Wings, and it’s community, is an afterthought.
     And advocating someone’s death – even after a trial! – is serious business. Serious business indeed.

178. Honestly, Don Q, if I had been banned from somewhere as often as you’ve been banned from ObWi, I might just stay away out of politeness.

179. There is no such thing as a principled conservative.
     Sure there is.

180. Spartikus: yep. Don Q’s latest incarnation has been banned again, so we probably won’t get to argue the point.

181. Wow. So with a ton of garbage posted and a few bits of useful info/discussion (among others, thanks for the response Andrew, it was very enlightening), I have to say that this last exchange is what drives me nuts about CB posting here.
     I have no doubt that DQ is a jerk who repeatedly breaks the rules and is quickly sent away. But so is CB, save the being sent away. I don’t comment the sorts of things he posts for any number of reasons. Primarily because it is unworthy of this site, the political discourse we strive to create, and my own personal dignity. However, there is also the fact that if many of us commenters wrote things like that we would be warned and then banned.
     CB has been warned. From what I gather, he is absolutely unrepentant about the way he expressed himself. His poor behavior is seen as license for many who usually behave better to act out (to them, that is), further degrading discourse. Lastly, he generates posts that aren’t just loaded with terrible rhetoric, but are also generally shallow and short sighted. A very cursory discussion pointed out why his post was more “rahrah”-ing than actual substantive commentary, and it isn’t like this is an abberation.
     I don’t feel like it is unwarranted to publicly request his removal. And that isn’t me atacking CB to devalue his argument (which is bad enough on its own). That is me pointing out that whatever kind of decent fellow CB may be outside of his online persona, his behavior as a poster is terrible and, at the very least, ought to get him knocked down to mere commenter status.
     Note: While I do not believe this comment provides a reasoned and persuasive argument that CB ought to be shot. However, I do hope it provides a reasoned and persuasive argument for why he ought to be removed as a poster, and even justifies a future decision to this effect.

182. Gary: That’s amusing, Jes, really it is, but I’m also reasonably sure that your displays of righteous indignation and moral superiority are no more likely to be saving any lives than the same from anyone else here in any direction.
     I’m glad you’re not being evicted, Gary.

183. Thank you, Jes.
     And thanks for responding to me.

184. Incidentally, I’m shamed to say that I initially missed that you were making a Monty Python reference. My bad.
     I wish you peace.
     Oh, wicked, bad, naught evil Zoot!
     😉

185. Surprisingly, I don’t think that Charles should be removed, if for no other reason than I don’t want ObWi to be put in the position of feeding the bizarre victimhood cult of the reigning party. “See, see, those mean, mean leftists just want to silence dissenting voices!” they’ll scream, in yet another display of projection. “We tried to ‘build bridges,’ and they bounced us out on our ears!”
     Let him continue to post, and get heaped upon his head every single ounce of the opprobrium he earns. Perhaps one day it will sink in, and a little character will be built as a result.

186. I’ve posted my suggestion at HoCB
     =====
     This guy goes to the hatchery and buys a thousand baby chicks. He comes back a week later and buys a thousand more. He comes back the third week and, sure enough, asks for another 1000. The owner says
     – you know, it’s great that you are buying all these chicks, but I gotta ask how come?
     And the guy replies
     -well, I’m not sure what’s wrong. Either I’m planting ’em too deep or too far apart…

187. I suggest that the banner be modified:

     This is STILL the Voice of Moderation. Do not adjust your set. The unpleasant signals are generated by Charles Bird, who retains a microphone.

     Also, opposite the homicidal kitten, the blood-spattered corpses of Joan and Noam should be displayed.

188. I love watching the “Iran is behind everything bad that happens” campaign unfold. Future generations will study it as a lesson in modern propaganda, comparing and contrasting it with similar demonization of another group in 1933-39. Maybe they, apparently unlike us (the general public of 2006 USA), will learn from it. Does everyone have their copy of Protocols of the Elders of Tehran handy?
     On a different note, let’s say for the sake of argument that it’s actually a good idea for Israel to help Lebanon rid themselves of Hezbollah. How might that best be accomplished? By not cooperating at all with the Lebanese army, by targeting Lebanese civilian infrastructure, by killing Lebanese non-combatants? Sorry, but no. Helping Lebanon resolve its internal troubles is clearly not a major item on the Israeli agenda.

189. we’re already in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can’t even keep those places under control. what in the world makes anyone think we have the ability to control Iran and Syria as well ?

     Well.
     We’re pretty sure Iran has an actual standing army. So it’ll fight fair. None of this ‘insurgency’ business.

190. Phil,
     I don’t particularly care about CB or anyone else’s feelings of victimhood. I don’t particularly care if anyone sees him as a martyr. People already see him that way for posting here and getting torn up.
     What I do care about is ObWi, its content and methodology. As such, it bothers me when a poster can repeatedly degrade the quality of discourse and drive the site away from its (generally) well maintained reasonableness.
     It isn’t just that CB is not the voice of moderation in any sense of the word, it is that his invective is pretty terrible and it encourages others to act out in similar ways and be justified (after all, if it was wrong, he would have at least been cautioned, as oposed to just having it pointed out that what he does is distastedful).

191. Phil,
     I don’t particularly care about CB or anyone else’s feelings of victimhood. I don’t particularly care if anyone sees him as a martyr. People already see him that way for posting here and getting torn up.
     What I do care about is ObWi, its content and methodology. As such, it bothers me when a poster can repeatedly degrade the quality of discourse and drive the site away from its (generally) well maintained reasonableness.
     It isn’t just that CB is not the voice of moderation in any sense of the word, it is that his invective is pretty terrible and it encourages others to act out in similar ways and be justified (after all, if it was wrong, he would have at least been cautioned, as oposed to just having it pointed out that what he does is distastedful).

192. Imagine if the Beatles, c. 1966, had decided that the band was missing something, and therefore they decided to invite a fifth member to the band, someone who could neither sing, play an instrument, or write a song. Let’s further imagaine that when people would point this out to John, Paul, George, and Ringo, they would defend their decision to admit the fifth member, because “he’s a good bloke an’ all, and ‘is heart is in the right place, an’ that’s what rilly counts, innit?”
     That’s how I feel about Charles Bird being part of Obsidian Wings.

193. Let’s further imagaine . . . that I spell-checked my last comment.

194. “Imagine if the Beatles …”
     I think Yoko’s a better singer than Charles.
     Ba-dum says Ringo.

195. Yet, I wouldn’t change a thing about the Beatles …. including Yoko.

196. Making every post of Charles into a Beatles thread. Me like.

197. It was twenty years ago today
     Sgt. Moe Lane taught the band to play
     They’ve been going in and out of style
     But they’re guaranteed to raise a smile
     So may I introduce to you
     the act you’ve known for all these years
     Sgt. Moe Lane’s ObWing Hearts Blog Band
     We’re Sgt. Moe Lane’s ObWing Hearts Blog Band
     We hope you will enjoy the show
     Sgt. Moe Lane’s ObWing Hearts Blog Band
     Sit back and let the evening go
     Sgt. Moe Lane’s ObWing, Sgt. Moe Lane’s ObWing
     Sgt. Moe Lane’s ObWing Hearts Blog Band
     It’s wonderful to be here
     It’s certainly a thrill
     You’re such a lovely audience
     We’d like to take you home with us
     We’d love to take you home
     I don’t really want to stop the show
     But I thought you might like to know
     that the singer’s going to sing a song
     And she wants you all to sing along
     So may I introduce to you
     The one and only Hilzoy Shears
     Moe Lane’s ObWing Hearts Blog Band

198. What would you think if I called for the death
     Of Jane Fonda and ol’ Noam Chomsky?
     I have the rights to post things to this blog,
     Things which come close to pure lunacy–
     I slide by through the grace of my friends,
     Need not try through the grace of my friends,
     A gadfly through the grace of my friends
     Do I need anybody?
     I just need someone to hate
     Could it be anybody?
     I want somebody to hate

199. Guys,
     We are discussing the situation via email. Please give us a little time, as it takes a little time to communicate effectively in that medium, as not all of us have access to our email 24/7. But the issue has been noted and we need some time to agree on a resolution. Your patience is appreciated.

200. goo goo gajoobgoo goo gajoobgoo goo gajoobgoo goo gajoob joob

201. Any chance that we can close comments on this thread? It’s not that I think there’s no value to everyone having a chance to express their opinion on Charles’ continuing ability to post here, but it doesn’t seem like the thread is serving as much else except a magnet for negativity.

202. Andrew,
     Thank you for the update. I am sorry if I started to push too hard in this public forum. I wasn’t aware that our voices had even been noted. Now that I know the conversation is taking place in earnest, I will drop it and let the powers at be make whatever decision the they think is best without further comment.

203. Many people seem to be taking it for granted that Hezbollah is a ‘cancer’, an unwanted foreign presence within Lebanon that its government and people would be rid of if only they could, but they can’t by themselves, so they need Israel to come in and nobly liberate them. I am far too poorly informed on all of this to put forth an opinion, but it certainly does occur to me to wonder whether that is really true.
     And then I just saw this letter to Krauthammer quoted by Djerejian at his place (scroll down to the Update):
     In 2005, Lebanon held an election. Hizbullah and Amal formed a common voting bloc entitled the Resistance and Development Bloc. It won all 23 seats in the south, on a platform that opposed the disarmament of Hizbullah. I am not happy about this development, and am no fan of hizbullah, but there it is. I have seen no evidence (by you or otherwise) – or even seen it asserted – that the election does not accurately reflect sentiments among the Shia in southern Lebanon.
     Under these circumstances, please tell me what it means to “defang” Hizbullah? What can it mean to “liberate” the south, “expel the occupier” and “give it back to the Lebanese” when 1) the local population supports the “occupier” (which is made up of local residents) and hates the proposed liberator; and 2) the proposed liberator has already sought to “liberate” the area once before, in 1982, which led to the present antagonism, and the creation of Hizbullah in the first place?
     Those seem to me to be good questions.

204. Andrew,
     Thank you for the update. I am sorry if I started to push too hard in this public forum. I wasn’t aware that our voices had even been noted. Now that I know the conversation is taking place in earnest, I will drop it and let the powers at be make whatever decision the they think is best without further comment.

205. I’d vote to keep Charles, if only so that through the continuing emotional hardship, Anarch might be made to be a better person.
     If I had a vote, that is.

206. the (quite logical) anger and resentment toward being bombed by high-tech munitions from the air just might be focused on those who, you know, are actually doing the bombing: in this case, the Israelis.
     It would be equally logical for them to discern why Israel is doing the bombing in the first place, Jay. Having read some of the Lebanese blogs, I think we can all give them a little more credit, their anger is not focused just on Israel but also at Hezbollah and the underperforming Lebanese government. Note also in my update that Hezbollah are firing rockets from Christian, Druze and Sunni communities. It doesn’t seem likely that residents in those communities would be unaware of Hezbollah rockets being fired from their neighborhoods. But at the same time, I don’t agree with Israelis destroying Lebanese army assets, scant as they are, and they should keep to a minimum the attacks outside south Lebanon.
     He thinks it’s funny. It stems from a very particularly frat-boy meanness. He probably still thinks calling people who blow a lay-up on the basketball court “fag” is funny, too.
     Mindreading and a posting rules violation in one paragraph, Phil. You’re still on your game.
     Uh, CB, there seems to be some confusion on either my part or several others’ – was I incorrect in stating above that you would be horrified at the scenario I described [throwing in some sort of court proceeding]?)
     You would be correct, rilke.
     Political murder remains murder, Charles, even if you gussy it up with bullshit charges of treason.
     Thanks for the lesson, Anarch, but nevertheless I did not call for murder, political or otherwise.
     Israel’s attacks are endangering 2.mumble million Lebanese.
     If Israel were aiming its missiles at Beirut instead of specific addresses in Beirut, your statement would be true, Jon. Rockets do go astray, so perhaps in that regard two million Lebanese would be imperiled. Also, anyone who lives in close proximity to Hezbollah members are at risk.
     Gary, I’m glad you’re not going to be tossed.

207. Ringo tells this story:
     During the White Album sessions, he was feeling a bit left out, a little taken for granted, perhaps a little unnecessary .. so he went over to Paul’s house and rang the doorbell.
     Paul answers the door. Ringo tells him his concerns, that it seems like three to one lately, etc. and Paul looks at him and says: “Really, I thought it was you three against me”.
     On to John’s house. John answers. Ringo feels left out and maybe he’ll just leave the group — three to one and all, etc. etc — and John looks over his glasses and says “Really, I thought it was you three against me” (he preferred it that way) …
     Well, thinks Ringo, this is odd. A guy gets a good head of self-pity up and finds out everyone is paranoid. On to George’s house. George, I think I’ll call it a day. I’m not needed and so on. George looks at him a minute and answers “Richie, you’ve got it all wrong. It’s you three that hate me.”
     Then they took on the Blue Meanies.

208. For some reason, I remember the lyrics of this ad as a Beatles song:
     Toblerone, out on its own
     Made with triangular almonds from triangular trees
     And triangular honey from triangular bees
     So, oh Mr Confectioner please
     Give me Toblerone.
     I mean, whenever the wisp of words comes floating back about triangular almonds from triangular trees and triangular honey from triangular bees I first think “What Beatles song was that?” and only then remember (sometimes after several minutes of racking my brains, or even racking google) “Oh yes, it’s a Toblerone advert.”
     I’ve never been that fond of Toblerone. Too sweet.

209. If you haven’t heard these, check out the two covers of I will
     Ben Taylor (son of James Taylor)’Bye Bye Love’ soundtrack
     and
     Brooks Williams Hundred Year Shadow

210. Charles,
     “It would be equally logical for them to discern why Israel is doing the bombing in the first place, Jay. Having read some of the Lebanese blogs, I think we can all give them a little more credit, their anger is not focused just on Israel but also at Hezbollah and the underperforming Lebanese government.”
     I suspect there is a very large selection bias there. Lebanese who are able to write a blog in English are more likely to be middle to upper class and have some level of immersion in Western culture. What percentage of the Lebanese population (much less those outside of the tourist destination areas which are not the target of most of the Israeli bombardment) do you think that applies to?

211. I suspect there is a very large selection bias there.
     Possibly, Dan. Actually, it would be N.Z. Bear’s selection bias because that’s where I looked.

212. CB: “You would be correct, rilke.”
     Ok, thanks.
     Hope people evaluating this experience will take my understanding into account.
     Pooh: “No way dude, you’re reasonable as often as any of us (with the exception of perhaps LJ or rilke…)”
     Or perhaps those evaluating my reasonableness shoud take the above into account.

213. Israel is doing the work that the Lebanese army should be doing but cannot…
     Remember the old New Yorker end-of-column filler bit called “Letters we never finished reading”?
     The further unavoidable glimpses resulting from scrolling down to hit ‘comment’ have only confirmed that first decision.

214. CB: I doubt much rage is being directed anymore at the underperforming Lebanese government. I think a lot of nonsense is perpetuated by misperceptions, and one of the largest misperceptions of Americans towards developing states concerns the position of government and society. Like it or not, most of us conceive of government as an entity that can act with near omnipotence within its borders. And the only challenge to that omnipotence is an internal challenge by another strong entity. What people who call for decisive Lebanese action don’t realize is that the Lebanese government barely exists. This is a place where the only governmental presence you saw for years was Syrian. The Lebanese recognize that their own governments is fledgling (fledgling not like a new administration, but like a new institution) and like most people do not blame people for what is outside their power.
     Yes, the Lebanese government is underperforming so badly that it cannot even now conduct disaster relief, let alone take on Hezbollah. Which would you consider its first obligation? The Lebanese government is no longer functioning, and though the total size of the pie is less than what it was a week ago, Hezbollah owns a greater proportion of that pie. I think the Christians in Lebanon are done for. No one is going to mess with Hezbollah now that they stood up to the Israelis.

215. Not that anyone asked or cares what this “grotesque” might recommend, but in all honesty and sincerity, maybe the powers that be should drop the pretense of ObiWi’s original purpose, and just become the Hilzoy and Katherine show.
     An articulate “not insane” left blog is still a valuable thing, and would fit the majority of the commentator’s perceptions better. The hysterical, sometimes comical, and other times childish reaction to Charles’ post indicates that it’s long past time to stop pretending.
     There are many high quality commentators here who might disagree with my assessment, but it’s clear the majority of the commentators have no interest in sincerely engaging anyone to the right of Lincoln Chaffee. My only request, in fairness to Moe Lane, would be to please just give the place a new name. Maybe have a contest.
     Cheers

216. Mac, you are perhaps doing a disservice to Andrew and to SH for that matter. If you have any names of conservative posters to recommend, I think they’ll get fair consideration. I for one would welcome you as a poster if you have the time/energy/thick skin necessary.

217. does the phrase “obsidian wings” have any descriptive content? I have always took it to be a piece of meaningless dada.
     Does it somehow mean “site containing both right and left viewpoints” or even just “mixtures of different things”?
     If it is merely a name without descriptive content, then I’m inclined to think that there is nothing inappropriate about keeping the name, even if the mission changes.
     I mean, sure, if the site of the name had originally been “Democrats and Republicans hold hands together!”, and then over time all the Democrats left town, then at some point you’d want to change the name. But if it’s just “Strawberry Alarm Clock”, then no reason.
     Not that I’m suggesting that as a new name, either.

218. rilkefan,
     No insult or disparagement was meant toward Seb, Andrew, Von etc. Apologies if it came across in that way.
     I appreciate your comments, but I barely have time to keep the rabble in line over at tacitus.org, let alone to comment on another blog. But thanks very much.
     One of the lessons I’ve learned in watching the evolutions of ObiWi and tacitus.org, is that if you’re going to have a place where the extremes actually engage, it has to be community self-policing with moderators only stepping in occasionally. The self-policing has to come from ideological fellows, otherwise it just becomes that much more partisan snipping.
     The commentariat here has lost its ability to self-police over a wide spectrum of opinions, and I doubt a majority even wants that anyway. Civility is now in a very narrow ideological band, and there’s nothing wrong with that per se, but it would be smart to recognize it.

219. In German, hilzoy, your head is male. You, being unmarried, are neuter.

220. Ah, crap; wrong thread.

221. Slarti: If memory serves, Arabic has some bizarre gender assignments for body parts. I believe that breasts and ovaries are masculine, for instance.

222. Nell: The further unavoidable glimpses resulting from scrolling down to hit ‘comment’ have only confirmed that first decision.
     There’s a minor grouping of rebels trying to turn it into a Beatles thread. I would have liked to make it a Monty Python thread, but no one seemed to want to join in.
     Macallan: but in all honesty and sincerity, maybe the powers that be should drop the pretense of ObiWi’s original purpose, and just become the Hilzoy and Katherine show.
     Noooo! Don’t take Sebastian and Andrew and Von away from us!
     All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle, and the thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and it belongs to me, and I own it, and what it is, too.

223. What? I came in here for an argument.

224. Oh, oh oh I’m sorry, this is “abuse’. You want Room 12-A just along the corridor.

225. As a naval officer I abhor the implication that the Royal Navy is a haven for cannibalism. It is well known that we now have the problem relatively under control, and that it is the RAF who now suffer the largest casualties in this area. And what do you think the Argylls ate in Aden. Arabs? Yours etc. Captain B.J. Smethwick in a white wine sauce with shallots, mushrooms and garlic.

226. An articulate “not insane” left blog is still a valuable thing, and would fit the majority of the commentator’s perceptions better. The hysterical, sometimes comical, and other times childish reaction to Charles’ post indicates that it’s long past time to stop pretending.
     Perhaps you should drop the pretense that the problem is with this den of angry and childish leftists, rather than with the substance (such as it is) of Charles’s contributions (such as they are) to the site.
     After all, if we were as you claim, than the other conservative and right-of-center posters–Sebastian, Von, and Andrew–would produce largely the same quality of reaction, if not in the same quantity due to their more moderate views.
     The fact that the overwhelmingly negative reactions come not to them but to Charles suggests that you are wildly off the mark. Occam’s Razor, etc.

227. But, but, Catsy:
     I am angry!
     I am childish!
     I clench my tiny fists; I pout my tiny mouth; I stamp my tiny little feet with rage! And they’re two left feet in tribtute both to my excessive leftiness and to my love of Richard Thompson!
     Do not deny me these simple pleasures.
     Hmmph.

228. Interestingly, despite my political leanings, my dancing instructor assures me that I, too, have two left feet.

229. Catsy,
     As stated elsewhere: it’s amazing the super cool magic powers that ol’ Bird Dog’s got here. Making all those people’s fingers fly about their keyboards! Dare I say, it is awe inspiring.
     But alas, I’m a simple guy, and using Occam’s razor, I would say people are responsible for their own impulse control. Charles doesn’t make anyone do anything.

230. Mac’s comment reminds me that the desire for those on the right to explain what those on the left need to do seems to be something imprinted on DNA, it seems. Unfortunately, comments like this suggest that they are based in hypocrisy, though on whose DNA it is printed, I shall not say. Which I imagine will be followed by exceedingly fine semantic parsing about what is meant by majority and large numbers. Yawn.

231. That must be it LJ!
     Or it could come from observing and moderating one site that transitioned from a right wing blog to a community oriented one with many more active left leaning commentators than there are right leaning ones here, and similarly observing this cross community oriented site transition to its present state.
     Nah…
     …must be the DNA thing!
     Who says self-parody is dead? Thanks for the fine illustration.

232. Why are we here, what is life all about?
     Is God really real, or is there some doubt?
     Well tonight we’re going to sort it all out,
     For tonight it’s the Meaning of Life.
     What’s the point of all these hoax?
     Is it the chicken and egg time, are we all just yolks?
     Or perhaps, we’re just one of God’s little jokes,
     Well ca c’est the Meaning of Life.
     Is life just a game where we make up the rules
     While we’re searching for something to say
     Or are we just simple spiralling coils
     Of self-replicating DNA?
     What is life? What is our fate?
     Is there Heaven and Hell? Do we reincarnate?
     Is mankind evolving or is it too late?
     Well tonight here’s the Meaning of Life.
     For millions this life is a sad vale of tears
     Sitting round with really nothing to say
     While scientists say we’re just simply spiralling coils
     Of self-replicating DNA.
     So just why, why are we here?
     And just what, what, what, what do we fear?
     Well ce soir, for a change, it will all be made clear,
     For this is the Meaning of Life – c’est le sens de la vie –
     This is the Meaning of Life.

233. As stated elsewhere: it’s amazing the super cool magic powers that ol’ Bird Dog’s got here. Making all those people’s fingers fly about their keyboards! Dare I say, it is awe inspiring.
     I’m not sure who you thought you were replying to here, as nothing you just wrote even remotely addresses the points I raised. But hey, everyone needs a hobby.

234. Ahh, Mac, so you missed all of the comments about the problems of Charles simply posting the same thing at Redstate and here and the polite requests to reconsider.
     Of course, I’m a simple guy, so when I see claims of clownish behavior in one place and then suggestions of ‘high quality commentators’ in another, I just think the writer is a hypocrite. But if it’s in the DNA, then they aren’t self aware enough to realize it.

235. maybe the powers that be should drop the pretense of ObiWi’s original purpose, and just become the Hilzoy and Katherine show.
     Everyone likes Andrew and SH. Sorry, but the problem isn’t that Charles is conservative, it’s that he’s a terrible poster. You may not agree with the assessment, but you can’t truly be unaware of its basis.
     My only request, in fairness to Moe Lane
     what’s unfair
     The commentariat here has lost its ability to self-police over a wide spectrum of opinions
     This I actually agree with. The signal-to-noise ratio in comments is still higher here than at just about any other political blog, but you get way more cliche, echo-chamber-y, cut-and-paste “wit” than used to be normal. Not that everything needs to Serious Analysis all the time either.
     (p.s. to everyone I rarely post but I’ve been reading for a long time)

236. Don’t be silly Catsy, we’re on the same page here. Get rid of Charles! And anyone else who causes these “overwhelmingly negative reactions”.
     Like me for instance, and that yucky Josh fellow too. Away with them all, because it is obvious they must be the problem.
     Just be honest about it.

237. Away with them all, because it is obvious they must be the problem.
     This would be far more trenchant if you weren’t doing the exact thing that you claim people here are doing.

238. Mac, that Josh fellow just posted snark offensive to SH on a thread about anger and grief.
     And I don’t hear anyone wishing you away. I don’t appreciate your comment about hilzoy over at the other place, and no doubt such comments here would get you yelled at – but there’s causality and time-ordering and so forth to get past.

239. but you get way more cliche, echo-chamber-y, cut-and-paste “wit” than used to be normal.
     That’s a fair observation, but a lot has to do with the fact that hilzoy has been doing most of the posting. This is not to blame hilzoy in any way, but if the majority of posts are from one person in a blog like this, a dynamic is going to be set up. Fortunately, the addition of Andrew has been excellent, so I look forward to what the future will hold here. However, concerning what will happen in rest of the world, not so much.

240. Of course, I’m a simple guy, so when I see claims of clownish behavior in one place and then suggestions of ‘high quality commentators’ in another, I just think the writer is a hypocrite.
     Seems simple to me. I can think of many high quality commentators here at ObiWi. I can also think of many clowns. This thread alone has both. That isn’t hypocrisy, that’s just accuracy. Hope that helps with your confusion.

241. The fact that Josh Trevino retains the right to post comments here after unrepentantly calling no fewer than half of its regular front-page posters potential traitors — and that being hardly his only nor his most egregious offense on what is essentially other people’s property — is a wonderment. And yet, to the ever-dishonest Macallan, Trevino is the aggrieved party.
     Not at all surprisingly, he seems at a loss to explain why Sebastian and Von don’t elicit nearly the results that poor, beleagured Charles does. Well, he offers an explanation, but it’s a stupid one.

242. I can think of many high quality commentators here at ObiWi. I can also think of many clowns.
     ah yes, what was it that I said?
     Which I imagine will be followed by exceedingly fine semantic parsing about what is meant by majority and large numbers.
     I wish this said more about my powers of prediction than your predictability.

243. rilkefan,
     I had to go and find the comment, but I fully agree that it was neither the time nor place for that snark.

244. I told everyone what would happen if they didn’t run away.
     Nukes will fall.
     Everyone left around: you chose to stay around.
     Bad choice.
     Run.

245. And yet, to the ever-dishonest Macallan
     Phil in his all too typical forum adds his contribution to the self-parody. Bravo!

246. “All too typical forum?” Isn’t it a little early for you to be drunk?

247. Still, if you can point out something I’ve said that’s dishonest, I’ve got a shiny new quarter with your name on it.

248. Macallan,
     thank you for taking the time to look for the comment and I want to apologize for being so snarky. Though I do think you are a bit too quick with the short snark, and realize that the audience at Tacitus is different, I don’t want to chase you off. I do wish you would see that a problem with Charles’ rhetoric can be separate from the desire to build an echo chamber for the left. Again, my apologies.

249. “All too typical forum?” Isn’t it a little early for you to be drunk?
     Again! Dang, you’re fantastic! If I were Slarti, I’d suspect that I was posting under “Phil” just for illustration.

250. Yawn.
     Still waiting, or don’t you want that quarter?
     Wait, wait . . . I predict another brilliant citation from the landmark case, Rubber v. Glue.

251. Slarti: If memory serves, Arabic has some bizarre gender assignments for body parts. I believe that breasts and ovaries are masculine, for instance.

     Hardly surprising. German, though, is way screwed up. If you should get married, for instance, you will become feminine.
     I think I posted a link to German-language up-screwed-ness on a prior open thread; I’ll rummage with forth.

252. Thanks LJ
     I do wish you would see that a problem with Charles’ rhetoric can be separate from the desire to build an echo chamber for the left.
     I’m not accusing anyone of having the desire to build an echo chamber for the left. The entire left spectrum leaves plenty to argue about. However, there isn’t any problem with Charles’ rhetoric any more than there is Hilzoy’s. They can each say something that will annoy someone. That Charles said something controversial is in the eyes of the beholder, and my point is if a majority doesn’t really want to behold ideas so counter their own, be honest and repurpose the site to what people actually want.
     Blaming the messenger or his style is bulls**t, because Charles gets plenty of praise when writes on ideas more agreeable to the pack. What people seem to not like is that he might actually think what he writes. His treatment here really does say more about here than it does about Charles. That other right leaning writers get less static might speak more to how far right they actually lean than the quality of their rhetoric. Von for instance is nearly a communist for goodness sakes… 😉

253. Phil, I don’t think Mac was accusing you of being dishonest, but of being, uhh, energetically angry at conservatives. And you do seem rather energetically angry at some conservatives of late. Dialing it down a notch might increase its effectiveness.
     lj, good form.

254. That other right leaning writers get less static might speak more to how far right they actually lean than the quality of their rhetoric.
     This is a good point. I suspect I’ll get a lot more static if I start talking economics, for example.

255. The point about CB‘s comment is that it didn’t well express what he thought. I’m trained in reading in non-standard ways and was able to figure it out, but it certainly can reasonably be read in a possibly scary way. I suspect CB wishes he had phrased it differently.
     If you can point to something vaguely similar from hilzoy I will a) be surprised b) suspect she explained/rephrased/retracted it as soon as someone complained c) failing that call for her to e/r/r it, which I’m sure she’ll do.

256. “This is a good point. I suspect I’ll get a lot more static if I start talking economics, for example.”
     We have to let the data speak. There have certainly been energetic but respectful discussions of conservative-economic posts by SH here.

257. Where did I ever claim to be otherwise, rilkefan? The point I was making is that Josh Trevino gets treated a hell of a lot better here than hilzoy, e.g., gets treated by him. And for Macallan to pretend otherwise is simple dishonesty.
     That dishonesty compounded by crap like ” . . . a majority doesn’t really want to behold ideas so counter their own.” Commenters here — including some of the most hardcore liberals on the site — have been begging for someone to present “ideas counter to their own” in an intelligent, analytical and forthcoming manner rather than someone who regurgitates up half-digested nonsense gleaned from the WSJ op-ed page and whatever conservative blogs he read that morning.
     I’ve recommended ThirdGorchBro several times in the past, and his ideas aren’t even particularly counter to many of my own. Nor are many of von’s or Sebastian’s, and — here’s the kicker — nor are many of Charles’. It has nothing to do with whether their ideas are counter to my own, because they aren’t.
     If I had to pick the people here whose ideas are most nearly the diametrical opposite to my own, on the most large-scale political things, they’d probably be the five most leftist posters you can name.

258. I suspect CB wishes he had phrased it differently.
     I’ll bet you $10 he doesn’t.

259. We have to let the data speak.
     You expect me to use data? See, we’re already in trouble.

260. rilkefan,
     I’d be shocked, not to mention impressed, if you would ever see the same thing as annoying that I might in something hilzoy would write. Which is sort of the point, the point isn’t to be critical of hilzoy or her writing. I think she and Charles are valuable.

261. “The point I was making is that Josh Trevino gets treated a hell of a lot better here than hilzoy, e.g., gets treated by him.”
     Well, and this is surprising given the people involved?
     And if you want to describe Mac‘s claim above as “entirely wrong” instead of “dishonest”, and if you would lead off with the excellent points you make later in your comment, I’ll agree with you.

262. The point I was making is that Josh Trevino gets treated a hell of a lot better here than hilzoy, e.g., gets treated by him. And for Macallan to pretend otherwise is simple dishonesty.
     What the hell are you talking about?

263. I’ll bet you $10 he doesn’t.
     His disclaimer at the bottom of the post suggests that he does.

264. This is a good point. I suspect I’ll get a lot more static if I start talking economics, for example.
     It’s not a good point at all–it’s a nonsensical assertion that’s precisely opposite of what has been demonstrated in the past.
     Case in point: this thread. Sebastian wrote a controversial analysis of a contentious issue. The post generated over 300 comments, many of which consisted of fairly heated back-and-forth exchanges between Sebastian and Jesurgislac, and a few of which consisted of precisely this kind of meta-discussion about the ideological balance of the site. Curiously, the vast majority of the “left-leaning” posters of this site defended Sebastian. While some took issue with his analysis and sourcing, I counted not one of them suggesting that his writings were unfit for Obsidian Wings. The only person accussed of “sucking and ruining the site” was Jesurgislac, and even that was in jest. It was one of the uglier threads I’ve seen on this site, and not once was it suggested that Sebastian should not be a poster on ObWi.
     Which is a long way of saying that Mac’s asertion is full of crap. All of the right-leaners who post here generate heated disagreement with the left-leaners who post here. Only Charles reliably generates a fervently-expressed desire for him to not post anymore.
     A reasonable person would look at those facts and ask first what it is about Charles’s writings that generates this reaction instead of asking what’s wrong with the people who have this reaction.

265. Slart,
     I think you are referring to the Twain essay on German.
     Mac,
     this is the sort of stuff that we have spent a lot of time on at HoCB, because it is meta-rhetoric, but suffice it to say (and I only speak for myself here) that at some point the style is the message. Couple that with the way Charles interacts with this list, (i.e. posting the same thing in three places and then only responding to the most inflammatory jibes, leveled largely because people want Charles to respond, so they keep turning up the temp until he does) and you’ve got problems. I think that dynamic is heightened because of the Andrew’s big entry here and his efforts to keep up. I am sure that some people are annoyed by Hilzoy’s rhetoric. But she responds to complaints and queries, which is why the dynamic evolves as it does. Commentors who have taken umbrage at Hilzoy, and have come in to be snarky with her have ended up getting the short end of the stick not because everyone is a hilzoy clone, but because it becomes very evident that the person coming in is a jerk. On the other hand, people who have come in and toned down their rhetoric have been accepted, though them might have felt completely comfortable because of the make up of the commentariat. I could pull up any number of comments of regulars defending Chas and asking people to cool it. But when Charles, as front page poster, starts it all off and then basically disappears, the desire of regulars to defend this kind of thing drops off dramatically.
     I also suspect that part of it is there are a number of academic-y types here and one reason why Hilzoy may aggravate you is because of that style (of which this is probably an annoying example) sounds to you (and possibly to Charles) like putting on airs.
     Apologies for the navel gazing, but, as it seems to be for you, I am intensely interested in how online communities develop. But I think you are missing a big part of the picture if you frame this in terms of political points of view rather than in online behaviors/personalities and writing styles.

266. them might have felt completely comfortable
     Gawd. They might no have felt completely comfortable

267. “if you would ever see the same thing as annoying that I might in something hilzoy would write.”
     The point here isn’t that the comment in question was considered annoying – it was considered a call for looking with equanimity on the murder of a stupid actress. It wasn’t a clearly written comment. If hilzoy has written anything you think would be as shocking upon misreading to the average conservative (“For glorifying the genocide of Native Americans, John Wayne earned a trip to the Hague and then to the hangman’s noose”? I can’t really guess.), I’d be (un)happy to see it. But I don’t think such a statement exists, in part because she’s a very clear writer (if sometimes at the expense of concision).
     I would like CB to continue to post here – but he needs to edit out the 1% of extraneous guaranteed-to-divert-the-discussion chaff, and he needs to participate more (my two cents, anyway) – people disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt aren’t going to get won over by non-participation in the community except for infrequent posts containing what seem like deliberate affronts.

268. “Gawd. They might no have felt completely comfortable”
     lj, are you turning Scottish or something?
     me: “We have to let the data speak.”
     Andrew: “You expect me to use data? See, we’re already in trouble.”
     I meant, you should post on economics and we’ll see.

269. Mac:
     I have no doubt that hilzoy has written things that annoy you. that’s the point.
     but we are slowly developing some rules of the road here which allow for more fruitful communication.
     First rule: Do not impute monolithic views to your political opponents.
     Counter-example: Josh’s most recent post on Tacitus.
     Second rule: Understand that the vast majority of your political opponents do not want to end our current way of life, whether in political, economic or religious spheres. Avoid suggesting that they do, even in jest.
     Counter-example: Ann Coulter, Chris Muir, most Redstate / Tacitus comments.
     Third: Understand that eliminationist rhetoric, guilt-by-association, and overuse of mindless talking points degrade the level of conversation.
     Counter-example: CB’s post.
     so, you said: However, there isn’t any problem with Charles’ rhetoric any more than there is Hilzoy’s.
     I have no doubt that you honestly believe what you wrote. But you need to understand that most of the liberals here, including me, profoundly disagree with that assessment.
     the worst thing is that we have the meta-threads on whether CB should have posting rights virtually every time he posts, because he so often violates one of those rules. it’s getting awfully tiresome explaining why CB’s rhetoric is so much more corrosive than Andrew’s or Sebastian’s.

270. And if you want to describe Mac’s claim above as “entirely wrong” instead of “dishonest”,
     I can’t be that charitable, I’m afraid. When he posts this garbage — Like me for instance, and that yucky Josh fellow too. Away with them all, because it is obvious they must be the problem. — he knows it’s “entirely wrong,” and says it anyway. That’s the textbook definition of dishonest. The only reason Josh Trevino ever deigns to grace Obsidian Wings with his loquacious presence is to piss in the punch, then act offended and condescending when people complain that they don’t like the taste of urine. If Macallan doesn’t see that as at least a problem, I’d suggest he’s using the wrong definition.
     Hilzoy, meanwhile, can get called a potential traitor to her online face and still attempt to engage Trevino in a reasonably manner on his own blog. But Macallan suggests that “the problem” is with hilzoy and her commenters. Please.
     and if you would lead off with the excellent points you make later in your comment, I’ll agree with you.
     Fine. Another great example: Look at how 3GB is regularly received in comments vs., say, OCSteve.

271. I’d vote to keep Charles, if only so that through the continuing emotional hardship, Anarch might be made to be a better person.
     Wow.
     Totally and completely owned. Or pwn3d, if you prefer.
     Well done, that man.

272. But Macallan suggests that “the problem” is with hilzoy and her commenters.
     Given that I think hilzoy is the strength of the site, and I recommended the site feature her and Katherine, I don’t see how you can make that case. The “problem” is what the site is versus what its original mission was. All I’ve said, and continue to say, is you should go with what it has become.
     Oh, and that Charles is getting a bum rap.

273. “I think you are referring to the Twain essay on German.”
     Oh, yes. I think I’d seen that unattributed; that it was done by Twain clicks very firmly and loudly.

274. Oh, and that Charles is getting a bum rap.
     Right. “Charles isn’t ruining the site by being a terrible poster, the commenters are ruining the site by talking about how he’s a terrible poster!”
     BTW, I would actually like an example of what Hilzoy has done that you consider ‘annoying’ in the way people find Charles’ talk about treason annoying. I understand that you don’t expect most of us to feel the same way about it, but that’s why I’m curious.

275. There are many high quality commentators here who might disagree with my assessment, but it’s clear the majority of the commentators have no interest in sincerely engaging anyone to the right of Lincoln Chaffee.
     FWIW, speaking only for myself, I’d be delighted in serious debate with conservative commenters who are not, to steal from Gary Farber, insane. [Such as asserting that liberals are traitors, or that the NYT is trying to target Dick Cheney for Al Qaeda.] That this has disqualified a great number of people to the right of Lincoln Chafee is an unfortunate commentary on the nature of conservative discourse; so it goes.

276. The “problem” is what the site is versus what its original mission was.
     *voice goes all Patrick Stewart-sy* The continuing mission: “This is the Voice of Moderation. I wouldn’t go so far as to say we’ve actually SEIZED the radio station . . .”

277. I hesitated to post, but I still think that Charles should be allowed to post here. I think that he is very representitive of right-wingers I’ve known and that airing his views here is informative and educational for many of the posters here. I think that Macallen and Josh Trevino should be banned though.
     Note that Charles hasn’t been rude to anyone here in this thread, but that neither of the latter ever show up here without insulting the regulars.

278. You go Frank, “Ban Macallan!”

279. You go Frank, “Ban Macallan!”
     Sayeth the banning gunslinger. Sorry, banning gunslinger [ref]*
     *After the intervention.

280. As an interested outsider here, I observe that this would have been a much, much more interesting thread had CB not included that unfortunate aside about Chomsky and Fonda. He certainly seems to have an ongoing propensity to include such self-hijacking elements in his posts. (I’m tempted to make a [strained] analogy to suicide bombers, but will not, though now I have both done it and not done it, in somewhat Birdian fashion.)
     His final update in this post, in which he ostensibly distances himself from the offending passage, does not really ring true to me. That is, he doesn’t sound sorry about it. I suspect, without proof, that he enjoys detonating these little bombs here (whoops). It’s not my place to give a thumbs up or down on his continued presence here, but that presence does strike me as dissonant with the overall tone of the site.

281. Oh, man, another meta-thread and I’m late to the party. Rats. Well, in case anyone cares…
     Up until a few weeks ago, I agreed with Macallan — get rid of the “Voice of Moderation” tagline and the half-hearted gestures towards cross-the-aisle rapproachement and let the blog embrace its decidedly liberal voice. However, Andrew’s tremendously successful debut and the generally very reasonable and enlightening conversations resulting from his posts reminded me of the unique value of this blog at its best.
     So my opinion now is that the blog can indeed foster interesting debate in a range from “somewhat conservative” to “mainstream liberal” and should do everything possible to encourage more such discussions. Charles probably shouldn’t post here anymore — his posts are too far away from that range and generate either abuse or (surprised) agreement but seldom any real discussion in this particular community.
     I’d also gently suggest that hilzoy, as the most prolific and leftmost regular poster, focus on topics that will stimulate real discussion and reduce the volume of snarky “oh those wacky wingnuts” and “OMG look at what those Bush admin idiots did now” posts that invite cheers and amens but not much interesting commentary. But I understand that that may be a minority opinion.

282. Andrew,
     This is a good point. I suspect I’ll get a lot more static if I start talking economics, for example.
     Short Version: Please do. I am certain you are wrong on every point, equally certain that the discourse in which I discover I am wrong on every point will be enlightening, as well as equally certain that the process by which we find a way in which to comes to terms with our disagreements will provide me with a more nuanced and insightful understanding of the world around me.
     Long Version: It depends on what you mean by static. Hilzoy did a series on libertarians and liberals that generated some very heated back and forth about first principles and whatnot, but it was significantly different from what has happened on this thread. Mostly, this is because there was solid content to be discussed from all sides and a general lack of poorly thought out talking points.
     It always irks me when I am looking for good discussion of various topics, discussion I can really dig into, and then along comes a pile of drivel and mindless talking points that isn’t terribly coherent and certaintly isn’t written to do well anywhere other than an echo chamber. However, what sends me over the top is that pointing this out invariably gets me accused of wanting to live in an echo chamber. I am not terribly far down the lefty scale. I tend to hover around Sebastian and Slarti. However, I get sick of mindless talking points from both sides, which is why I come here. This in turn makes me pretty short tempered with those who do nothing more than incite partisanship.

283. I second socratic_me’s statement, except perhaps on where I would fit in on a lefty scale.

284. I am not terribly far down the lefty scale. I tend to hover around Sebastian and Slarti.
     Hmmm…well, I’ve been accused of having liberal tendencies before. Mostly by people who haven’t been around me all that much, though.

285. Now, Hitler…Hitler would’ve thought of me as a liberal.
     There. I compared socratic_me to Hitler, and the thread is young, yet.
     But it’s all in fun; I watched The Producers last night.

286. Slart,
     Does it count if you are merely pointing out how Hitler and I are not alike? My point in the quoted comment was that I don’t think of myself as particularly liberal, though the argument that those who think government is the problem often make government the problem is beginning to get a lot of traction with me.
     And I assume that is the new Producers, yes? Not usually a fan of remakes, but I loved that one. So much so that my Sister-in-law got it for me for my B-day.

287. Re: my being liberal: No, wasn’t all that serious. Of course.
     Re: Producers: Yes, the new one. Hysterical, in places.
     Now I’ve got to see the original; I have a hard time imagining that the two are all that much alike.

288. I haven’t seen the remake, but the original may be the funniest movie ever made. You really should rent it.

289. See, I am not all that fond of the original. Too much manic yelling being passed off as humour. This is also the reason that I find the beginning of the new one annoying. The first 15 minutes or so are basically straight mimicry of the old one. Then it starts to smarten up and add some great song and dance numbers and I crack up.

Comments are closed.