home

Friday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 06:53:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Yes, it's still snowing here.

In other news, Lance Armstrong dodged a bullet. The U.S. Attorneys Office in Los Angeles announced the doping investigation is finally done, and no more charges will be brought.

The U.S. Army made it official today that Bradley Manning will face a full courts-martial. the announcement, which I haven't found, came from Maj Gen Michael S. Linnington of the Military District of Washington.

An inmate in Vermont is going to be in hot water for making decals for police patrol cars that had a picture of pig in it. (It's one of the spots on the cow.)

As BTD noted, Komen restores funding to Planned Parenthood.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Super Bowl Props Part 1 | Romney to Win Nevada Caucuses >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Night Open Thread | 105 comments (105 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    new documentary film (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 07:38:07 PM EST
    just opened in Canada:

    Breast cancer has become the poster child of corporate cause-related marketing campaigns. Countless women and men walk, bike, climb and shop for the cure. Each year, millions of dollars are raised in the name of breast cancer, but where does this money go and what does it actually achieve?

    PINK RIBBONS, INC. is a feature documentary that shows how the devastating reality of breast cancer, which marketing experts have labeled a "dream cause," has been hijacked by a shiny, pink story of success.

    Talk about great timing. Sounds like a good film.

    I'll be seeing it (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 11:56:32 PM EST


    Parent
    The things you learn on the internet: (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by observed on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 08:09:34 PM EST
    Bill Gates is the mastermind behind a eugenics program which intends to kill 2 billion people.
    Wow.. ..
    What next.. butter is the best possible food for your arteries?  Let me check.
    Yep, butter has fantastic health benefits.
    I need to catch up on some modern science and journalism, obviously.

    GMO's are a huge improvement (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 09:07:21 PM EST
    over nature too. Organic foods are a conspiracy, washing vegetables and fruits to remove pesticides is paranoia gone wild, global warming is a hoax also apparently, and radiation cures cancer so Fukushima is good for you. ;-)

    Parent
    And according to Fox (none / 0) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 12:09:25 AM EST
    the unemployment rate went down because the Republican Congress obstructionism has prevented Obama from doing any more damage.

    Parent
    Yes, and also (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 09:27:10 AM EST
    you have all the other channels convincing millions to believe the two party system is a real choice, too...

    Parent
    It is a real choice (none / 0) (#66)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 06:14:53 PM EST
    Anyone listening to what the parties say and do makes it clear.  Ask a gay soldier if he thinks there is a difference.  Ask a 23 year old without a job who has access to his parent's healthcare if there is a difference.  Ask a GM employee who avoided getting laid off if there is a difference.

    Delusion is overlysimplistic "they are all The Man" world views.

    There is a clear distinction between the parties.  Your position could reasonably be that  you don't like what either party is about.  

    Arguing that the parties are the same is just silly.

    Parent

    in other news: (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cpinva on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 08:37:19 AM EST
    republican candidate rick santorum announced, during a campaign speech before a group of potential missouri primary voters that, contrary to popular opinion, he really does have a brain. per mr. santorum:

    "yes, i do have a brain. granted, it isn't a very big brain, but the best thing is, it hasn't been used much. if elected president, i will have the freshest, least used brain of any president in our country's great history!"

    pundits and national news organizations all agreed that mr. santorum's brain probably hadn't been used much, but that everyone already knew that.

    santorum (none / 0) (#86)
    by womanwarrior on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:00:52 PM EST
     Onion?

    Parent
    Occupy this... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 09:31:33 AM EST
    RawStory...

    Stanislaw clutches a soup pot as he sticks his head up above the rim of a manhole just long enough for police to fill it with steaming stew before he ducks back into the heating duct he calls home on the outskirts of Warsaw.

    Night-time temperatures have plunged to a bone-chilling minus 20 degrees Celsius (minus 4 Fahrenheit) here this week. But five metres underground, in this huge concrete cavern covered by a maze of hot water pipes, it's a cozy 20 degrees Celsius.

    The 58-year-old is among the Polish capital's several thousand homeless people. Some live underground in the heating ducts criss-crossing the city and pumping hot water from communist-era coal-fired central heating plants to homes and offices.
    [snip]
    Over the last week nearly thirty people have fallen victim to a deep freeze in in Poland while nearly 70, mostly homeless Poles, have died since the beginning of the winter.
    Romney fires (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 07:09:06 PM EST
    his new debate coach after the media mentions too much that the Romney improvement may be due to Michele Bachmann's debate coach.

    Boy, another bad character (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 07:44:11 PM EST
    flaw.  

    Parent
    don't forget (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 09:08:58 PM EST
    Mitt likes firing people.

    Parent
    Especially those who ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Erehwon on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 10:53:36 PM EST
    provide services to him!

    Now that she's taught him how to debate Gingrich, she ain't needed.:-)

    Parent

    how silly (none / 0) (#5)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 09:06:58 PM EST
    oh no, can't be seen to be helped by a girl's debate coach.  Ignore that she actually improved a lot during the debates before she dropped out.  She's Michelle Bachmann, can't be associated with HER.

    Parent
    Iranamania (none / 0) (#11)
    by lentinel on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 05:13:38 AM EST
    From an Editorial in the NYT:

    Iran's nuclear ambitions are real and dangerous. But there is no proof that it has made the decision to move from producing fuel to building a bomb.

    If there is no proof that Iran has made a decision to build a bomb, why are their "nuclear ambitions" considered to be "real and dangerous"?

    This is the same type of double-talk that was being fervently dished out in during the care and feeding of hysteria that enabled the war in Iraq.

    In testimony on January 31 by James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, stated, "We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."

    To me, this puts into question why we are in the process of trying to strangle Iran when the issue seems to be what Iran might eventually decide to do.

    The way Iran pops in and out of national consciousness, similar to North Korea, makes me think of it as something that the administration keeps on the back-burner as something that it can bring out to alter a political narrative.

    And, of course, there's plenty of oil in them thar hills.

    what makes Iran different (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 08:02:15 AM EST
    is Israel.  Israel takes Iran seriously and is making real threats about what they are going to do about Iran.  We now have to decide what we are going to do.  We have set ourselves up as Israels number one ally, so what now? What does Russia do?  What does China do?  How about Germany, England and the rest of the European Union?
    The answer to those questions could mean the difference between global war and not global war.

    Parent
    This reminds (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by lentinel on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 09:33:06 AM EST
    me of what has been called the Cuban Missile Crisis in the early 1960s.

    We said that any attack upon us from Cuba would be considered an attack from the USSR.

    I would say that the world would consider any attack from Israel upon Iran to be a proxy attack by the USA. I know I would.

    So it is the US, imo, that is rattling the saber, and it is the US (us), who will suffer the consequences.

    And the motives for this rattling are less than honorable and far from necessary imo.

    Parent

    Very different world now (none / 0) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 10:51:36 AM EST
    In the Cuban missile crisis, those were actually Russian missiles.  There wasn't any pretense even by Russia that they were Cuban.

    I agree entirely that the hysteria about a possible Iranian nuclear bomb is entirely unnecessary and that an attack by Israel would be seen as the same as an attack by the U.S.

    But Iran has no allies, and its Arab neighbors all fervently want to see its nuclear weapons program stopped.  No nation is going to go to war with Israel or the U.S. over this, though there would certainly be lesser consequences and an increase in terrorist recruiting.

    In 1963, it was two enormous nuclear-armed superpowers at direct odds over those missiles in Cuba.


    Parent

    Nowadays, (none / 0) (#32)
    by lentinel on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    "terrorist recruiting" is good enough for me.

    It does not have to be the eyeball to eyeball confrontation of two nuclear powers.

    An attack by Israel would result in attacks upon the US imo.
    (I believe the appropriately named Mr. Clapper might not disagree with that assessment.)

    An attack by Israel is most likely to galvanize the Iranian people into a fit of patriotic support for Admandinijad.
    It might also cause new support for Iran from her Arab neighbors to materialize.

    It doesn't have to be a confrontation by a nuclear power. These days, all it takes is a fanatic with a suitcase. And an attack would create a bushel-full of new fanatics imo. (I use the word "fanatic" - but for them it would probably feel more like "patriot".)

    I just don't accept that the world will sit back and do nothing, have no reaction, to an attack by a surrogate of the USA upon Iran.
    An increase in terrorist recruiting is not particularly desirable at this time from my point of view - although it may be desirable from the point of view of the machinery of perpetual war to which we are bound.

    And ultimately, to return to my main point: an attack by Israel will be seen as an attack by the United States - just an attack by Cuba upon the United States would have been seen as an attack by the USSR.

    If Cuba could not pretend that the missiles weren't Russian, I don't see how Israel could pretend that their missile weren't American. They've just been parked there for a longer time.

    The consequences might not be nuclear war, but then again, one thing could lead to another....

    Parent

    Hasn't Russia provided Iran (none / 0) (#46)
    by brodie on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    with plenty of technical support for its nuclear program and don't the Russians consider Iran in their sphere of influence as a regional neighbor and at least cooperative non hostile state?

    I think the Russians would be very upset about an Israeli attack on Iran and would likely not sit back passively.  The Chinese would also be greatly concerned both as to the oil disruption and re further US military ventures, via proxy Israel, in yet another country far from American shores.

    Pakistan might also get nervous about who might be next on the US hit list, or they may decide that it's open season and if the Israelis can attack Iran, they would be justified in hitting India.

    Well point is the Israelis could cause one or several unfortunate but not entirely unforeseeable reactions which could escalate into nightmarish scenarios and suddenly threaten world stability.  

    Parent

    Isn't China (none / 0) (#39)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 12:34:14 PM EST
    buying oil from Iran?

    Parent
    "kosher jesus"??? (none / 0) (#12)
    by observed on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 07:50:46 AM EST
    What next, "Kosher Mohammed"?
    "Kosher Genghis Khan" would be interesting  to me, considering my current location.
    Genghis was quite concerned about rules of meat consumption, by the way.
    he was a Rabbi, a nice Jewish boy (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 08:07:22 AM EST
    You don't think he kept Kosher?  Kosher now is a nice tradition.  Kosher then was the defense against yucky diseases of the digestive system that could kill you.

    By the way, Muslims also frown upon pork don't they?

    Parent

    we don't even know Jesus was an (none / 0) (#16)
    by observed on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 09:23:28 AM EST
    historical person! The idea that we can say ANYTHING about his life story is beyond preposterous. There is NO record.

    Parent
    Even most atheist scholars (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 10:48:53 AM EST
    accept that there was a historical Jesus.  Paul's letters, which are accepted as authentic, i.e., written by him, talk of meeting Jesus's brother in Jerusalem circa 50 CE. That is not much time to develope a legendary or mythical person who never existed at all.

    Josephus is good corroboration.

    On the whole, enough evidence to say there was a Jesus.

    Parent

    it has nothing to do with atheism (none / 0) (#34)
    by ZtoA on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:48:32 AM EST
    Historical Jesus historians begin with no basic and public facts. They begin with an unprovenanced narrative that contains much myth and literary artifice, and from which they attempt to create their own basic and public facts by means of exegesis. But the basic and public facts so created are as uncertain and debatable as the secondary facts of nonbiblical historians.

    In other words, historical Jesus scholars have no objective, existential raw materials with which even to begin to attempt a legitimate historical enquiry.

    Historians have corroborated sources and primary evidence for Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. They have nothing but assumption in the case of Jesus. The Gospel narratives cannot be corroborated as history. Conclusions of exegesis are entirely dependent on the skills and interests of the historian. Exegesis of such documents can never produce an existential or basic real Fact.

    link

    Those arguing for a Historical Jesus seem truly threatened by a mythic reading and construction of a religion's core persona.

    Parent

    The opposite is true (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 12:35:27 PM EST
    Those who argue there never was a person named Jesus have a very specific axe to grind against religion in general.  Very result orientated and tendentious.

    When I reference atheist scholars, it was to highlight that historians who are not trying to validate the Gospel accounts generally still accept that there was a Jesus.

    And, there is a a differnce between accepting that Jesus existed and accepting the Gospel Narratives, as referenced in you quote.

    Noted atheist scholar Jeffrey Lowder accepts Jesus as a historical person.  Link

    I have yet to read anything by someone who was advocating the hypothesis that there never was a Jesus that wasn't full of political arguments against religion and the right wing.  Although I might agree with these arguments or some of them, it was clear the objective was political and not about history.

    Parent

    What the heck do you know about (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by observed on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 04:08:26 PM EST
    ancient scholarship? Is this your area of expertise?
    While it is NOT mine, I do know there is a great deal of debate among actual scholars as to whether Jesus existed.
    And what is tendentious is for YOU to dismiss scholarship you  haven't read, based on the claim that the scholars are atheist, a fact which you have not adduced.


    Parent
    We can discuss the scholarship (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 05:42:32 PM EST
    can we not?

    I would be interested in that.  

    Parent

    Do you have an opinion (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    on the James Ossuary?  The trial in Israel ended over a year ago and the judge still has the decision under submission.

    It appeared that a consensus had been developing that the part of the inscription referring to the "brother of Jesus" was fake, but that the balance of the inscription was genuine.

    Later invents have, however, made everything even more murky.

    Parent

    My opinion is that centuries (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by observed on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 09:35:09 PM EST
    of incentive to create fake archeological evidence should make one extremely skeptical of any such claim.
    Your charge of "emotionalism", coupled with your defense of deist scholars against those "atheists" who may have an axe to grind,
    is jarring.
     A person who is not emotional would realize that, a priori, the fact a scholar is a Christian casts doubts on his objectivity in this area.
    Your backwards formulation is untenable.


    Parent
    I favorably quoted an atheist (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 09:57:49 PM EST
    scholar.  

    You apparently haven't read my posts.....

    Parent

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:53:56 AM EST
    The basic and public facts so created are as uncertain and debatable as the secondary facts of nonbiblical historians.

    As if there ever are "objective" sources on anyone.

    And what the heck are "existential" sources, much less "existential raw materials"?

    Parent

    Josephus???? (none / 0) (#55)
    by observed on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 04:05:29 PM EST
    Geez, get with the program. Josephus is not a credible source.
    So one meeting with a brother many years after Jesus' death is good enough for you?
    Even supposing I grant your "source", it's not relevant to my comment about "Kosher Jesus", which is mentally ill scholarship.

    Parent
    Josephus is considered credible (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 05:24:02 PM EST
    If you have a link, then fine.  

    You have way too much emotion here to have a viable discussion.

    I have not dismissed anyone because they are an atheist.

    You need to re-read my comments.

    Parent

    How do we know of others? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 09:40:48 AM EST
    How do we know that the Roman caesars were historical persons?  The Greek philosophers?  The Asian emperors?  The medieval kings and queens?

    Parent
    More physical evidence for them (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Dadler on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 10:23:00 AM EST
    As for Jesus, the Frist Nicean Council did a pretty good job of marginalizing, delegitimizing, banning and burning the books about him that it didn't like.  They made sure it was THEIR Jesus who existed, the "real" one, whomever he may have been, had no chance.  To me anyway, pagan that I am, a lot of those banned Gospels, however, are more interesting and enlightening than the four in the "Good Book."  The Gospels of Thomas and, more recently, the Gospel of Judas especially.  Come on, books supposedly from the perspective of the doubting disciple and from the disciple who sold the savior out, now THOSE are books to keep.

    Parent
    Or the Gospel of Mary.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 10:40:13 AM EST


    Parent
    Gnostic gospels (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 12:58:40 PM EST
    make good reading.  And good evidence that evidence changes, and that there is evidence, and then there is evidence -- and that the selection of evidence cannot be "objective" but is based on assumptions from expertise and experience.

    Parent
    What more physical evidence (none / 0) (#29)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:23:58 AM EST
    of them?  

    Parent
    Here's a little evidence (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ZtoA on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:51:35 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    Well, then, there's (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 12:26:56 PM EST
    the Shroud of Turin.

    Equally a work of art? or even more significant as evidence?  Since caesars didn't push their heads into the molten metal to make Roman coins.

    If we put the Statue of Liberty on our money, does that mean that depicts an actual woman?

    (Well, of course, the model must have been real -- but who's to say that the maker of that coin did not use a model, if the caesar was busy fighting the barbarians?)  

    Parent

    Yeah, sure (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ZtoA on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 01:18:38 PM EST
    but not really responsive to my point.

    You seem to be saying that everything gets mythologized and I would agree. Nevertheless, I don't think the New Testament is or should be read as historical truth. Literal historical truth. To what extent is it mythologized is part of the discussion.

    And, MKS, yes there are agendas. Historical Jesus proponents are sometimes creationists, and take religion very literally. They have an agenda too.

    Parent

    I must not be making my point clear (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 03:13:42 PM EST
    which is not what you say that I'm saying.

    What I'm saying is that arguing for the "historical truth" of some documents (or artifacts) more than others is too often based on assumptions -- another sort of mythologizing.  

    To privilege a Roman coin, for example, or Roman documents is based on assumptions that in turn privilege written traditions over oral traditions that eventually were collected in the Testaments.  

    In our country, the privileging of written traditions over oral traditions still is a clever reason for dismissing much of Native American history.  We all have our "origin stories," and the Bible is as much an "origin story" -- myth or history, whichever -- as the stories of the origins of Rome.  

    Romulus and Remus, suckled by wolves, spared to found the city on seven hills . . . that's more believable than the Bible?  And much of the documentation of Rome was paid for by politicians, and propaganda is not new. . . .

    To put it another way, the assumption that the Romans only wrote truths -- especially in political documents -- is as shaky as to assume that it's all fiction.  The "truths" always are somewhere in between.  And, of course, even the fictions such as every culture's "origin stories" tell us much about them.

    Parent

    This argument is backwards (none / 0) (#57)
    by observed on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 04:12:39 PM EST
    YOU are giving primacy to an oral tradition which you infer from written documents, over written records---especially written civic records.
    It makes no sense to me.


    Parent
    no, she isn't (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 04:24:48 PM EST
    this is her point (emphasis added):

    What I'm saying is that arguing for the "historical truth" of some documents (or artifacts) more than others is too often based on assumptions -- another sort of mythologizing.

    that is very different from what you say Towanda is doing - she uses the privileging of written documents over an oral tradition as an example of a "mythlogizing" that is "based on assumptions," & her point would apply equally to the privileging of a putative oral tradition over written documents from which it would be inferred (a privileging, again, in which Towanda is not engaging)

    Parent

    Thank you, Addams Family (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 08:46:10 PM EST
    You get it.

    The hidden cultural assumptions in this thread are classic.

    Takes me back to grad school.

    Even years afterward, though, I still had a lot to learn, when I wandered into Native American studies, and religious studies, and . . . oh, I hope I have enough time left for lots more studies of the new sort that challenge my cultural assumptions!  I've still got a lot of 'em, as do we all.

    Parent

    but you are assuming too (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ZtoA on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 02:48:50 AM EST
    You are assuming that the oral mythology of jesus which turned into the written gospels -with NO corroborating evidence or source- is a reliable primary source of historical data. And when some historians point out that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of jesus, and that the gospels are heavily influenced by belief and agenda and therefor are unreliable primary sources, that those questioning historians are dismissed for the only reason that they might be simply equally influenced by their own mythologies (whatever they may be) and therefore their opinions are suspect and easily dismissed. (sorry for the run on sentence - its Saturday night and a long one at that)  IF you are arguing that oral (which have become written) sources are scientifically reliable then Sleeping Beauty is source material for scientific studies of sleep disorders, the earth was created in 7 24 hour days and Mary had a baby with no help from an earthly sperm..... and other traditional oral information.

    Way back in the middle ages (of the 20th century) art history classes used Janson's as the accepted textbook and it was simply accepted that there were no women who were historical artists. Maybe Cassatt and Vigee Le Brun. Two in thousands of years. When historians challenged that party line narrative it was a big deal in the art history circles. It was a big deal for the arts in general actually. This is similar. The accepted sources say the same accepted things and questioning is threatening.  

    Parent

    i don't see (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 01:56:17 PM EST
    where Towanda suggested this possibility:

    IF you are arguing that oral (which have become written) sources are scientifically reliable . . .

    as i read her comments, she is saying that one's tendency to regard a particular type of evidence as (scientifically, historically, etc.) "reliable" is often a function of one's existing (cultural, academic, philosophical, personal, etc.) assumptions, biases, prejudices & agendas

    i see her comments as being about the process of defining & then evaluating evidence, not about the product of such definition & evaluation

    together, her comments on this thread constitute a metacomment on the discussion

    Parent

    Yes, I agree with that (none / 0) (#92)
    by ZtoA on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    And I agree with her point about the process. Nevertheless, in this thread, in this context, and in western history the oral tradition (new testament is a documentation of an oral history, sort of like Grimm's writing down existing folk tales) has been dominant. The christian church has NOT wanted this challenged in any way. This party line thinking does not want to admit other kinds of sources. I'm arguing for including MORE sources and for including modernist scientific/historic views.

    I am not coming at this from an anti christian pov. I don't mind party line stances being pushed upon and tested. And even IF there was not a specific personage of jesus who was just like what the official bible says he was, that does not do anything to the central meanings, mythologies and mysteries of the theology. Frankly, since I am interested in certain theologies but not the formal religions, the questioning of a historical jesus makes the theology more interesting and compelling.

    Parent

    Grimm's (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 04:07:30 PM EST
    yes, interesting that you should mention Grimm's

    if a significant number of citizens in a constitutionally secular republic believed the content of Grimm's Fairy Tales to be factual, then that would be an amusing curiosity except insofar as the Grimm's believers succeeded in getting their beliefs enshrined in the laws of the republic

    in that case, what would be the more intelligent response to this violation of the republic's constitution: (1) political activism directed at legislators & aimed at restoring & maintaining the republic's constitutional foundations or (2) insults directed at the Grimm's believers, coupled with peckish quibbling aimed at demonstrating that the content of the fairy tales is not factual?

    this is not really a reponse to your comment - it's my own metacomment on the discussion

    Parent

    And here we are, with believers in (none / 0) (#94)
    by observed on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 06:24:51 PM EST
    fairy tales all over the world trying to get their beliefs protected by and enacted into law.

    Parent
    I think you mean this as an insult (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ZtoA on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 10:23:23 PM EST
    but I actually "believe in" fairy tales. I think there are essential truths within mythologies. In the 90s I loved to read Marie Louise von Franz who wrote many books (transcribed lectures) where she did Jungian analysis of folk tales. Wow. Extremely insightful. I may be arguing Towanda's point now, but folk tales (oral tradition) contain as many truths about humanity and culture as any - ledger or scientific data. (at least I think that is what she would say.) Of course it does not affect these truths in the least if Briar Rose, Hans Iron, a Fox and a Cat, or Seven Swans were actual historical figures or not. In fact, that they are not constrained that way makes the stories even more powerful. They are constantly being remade. (btw a wonderful compilation of Grimms' is the Ralph Manheim translation.)

    I think I have been talked into trying to attend the opening of Romeo and Juliet at the Ashland Shakespeare festival late this month.  Who cares if they were 'real'? I think the truths in the story surpass historic reality and get at something deeper. In the same way I would be not unhappy if the jesus story was historically questioned. The essence shines through more brightly.

    And, of course, folk tales are not historic or scientific. And law should not be founded on folk tales. Its kind of funny to think about those possibilities tho.

    Parent

    Z to A, Addams, MKS, observed, et al. (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 10:55:54 PM EST
    . . . sorry that I wasn't as available today to keep up with this discussion as it continued.  I would have had a lot more fun than I did, after the day unexpectedly turned into an exercise in closet organizing -- after shelves collapsed.  Turns out I had stacked too many articles and journals there for years, so I was sifting through those. . . .  But the weighty thinking here has been as good (and much more concise.:-)  

    How I wish that we could gather around a seminar table to keep this going, metathinkers all.  I hope you see this before this thread disappears, to see my thanks for challenging my brain, again, on big ideas.  (I've been writing again and getting bogged down in details.  I needed this!)  

    Parent

    M-L von F (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 11:02:26 PM EST
    a wonderful writer - Shadow and Evil in Fairy Tales & her related works - also C. G. Jung: His Myth in Our Time & On Divination and Synchronicity

    speaking of Jung, do you intend to spring for the facsimile edition of The Red Book? - a professional acquaintance of mine is the scholar who finally gained the Jung heirs' assent to that project

    Parent

    don't know about this (none / 0) (#101)
    by ZtoA on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 11:23:00 PM EST
    sounds really fascinating.... can you tell more?

    Also, Shadow and Evil (almost typed Shadow and Elvis - ha) is one of my all time fav books! Few books - that is purely linguistic ventures - have ever created more visual imagery for me. I guess it reached many parts of my brain and other perceptive receptors. Simple, symbolic, great book. So glad you mentioned it! I have more difficulty reading Jung directly. However his very last book, Answer to Job, has stayed with me for many decades. I have agreed with it and disagreed, which is fun for me and taken with other linguistic interpretations and visual ones (mainly Blake who did an amazing visual interpretation of Job) have meant a lot to me regarding the nature of suffering. Not just in a separate sense - but in a couple of moments where I was near death.

    Parent

    The Red Book (none / 0) (#102)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 12:29:28 AM EST
    it was Jung's private (secret) journal -  it contains, inter alia, Jung's dreams, his drawings & accounts of his interactions with Philemon (an alter/ally of the imaginal realm)

    here is the NY Times account

    here is the book itself (now about $115 - it's in the "save for later" section of my cart)

    here are mp3s of four lectures on The Red Book

    Parent

    I always thought Jung (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 12:00:18 PM EST
    was a bit of a closet antisemite, and Nietzchean neopagan..(maybe his "Black Book" clarifies that side of him a little more..)

    He wrote reems and reems of words about the connections between depth psychology and the earlier, underground, occult/gnostic traditions, and only makes the barest mention of a Jewish mystical tradition that existed for centuries, (perhaps this was also because of the unconscious associations with Freud in Jung's mind..)

    Then there's all those almost obsessive Nietzche references -- more than any writer from that era outside of Hiedegger (another Nazi)..And course, who took over the German Psychoanalytic Society in the late-thirties, but the autistically-apolitical and "mystically detached" Jung; after Freud, Reich, Adler & co had been forced to flee Germany..
     

    Parent

    contemporary Jungians (none / 0) (#105)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 12:39:21 PM EST
    do make connections to the Jewish mystical tradition - Jeffrey Raff, for example

    Parent
    Not Carl though (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 12:46:23 PM EST
    and I've wasted considerable time reading nearly everything he wrote: though he did lead me to Paracelsus (who btw, Evan Connell writes much more edifyingly about..)

    I also forgot to mention Jung's Wagner fixation: another bad sign in my experience..He really wanted badly to be German, maybe because he thought the Swiss weren't taken seriously enough..

    Parent

    Carl Gustav also (none / 0) (#107)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:14:32 PM EST
    had an affair with his sister-in-law & at least one affair with a patient

    Freud was addicted to cocaine

    Lewis Carroll was a (nonpracticing) pedophile

    i enjoy the films of Roman Polanski & Woody Allen

    baby, bathwater

    Parent

    oops meant that as a response to observed (none / 0) (#98)
    by ZtoA on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 10:27:48 PM EST


    Parent
    I'd never heard of the Ralph Manheim (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Mon Feb 06, 2012 at 01:55:35 AM EST
    translation.  Based on the sample, I've added it to my wish list but I'm a little sad that it doesn't appear to have pictures.  What are fairy tales without pictures?

    ..er.. I mean illustrations :)

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#96)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 09:27:29 PM EST
    exactly why it's so important to fight effective political battles instead of picking silly philosophical fights

    Parent
    OK maybe some context is needed (none / 0) (#59)
    by ZtoA on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 04:52:08 PM EST
    History needs a scientific approach. And from what I can tell biblical scholars do use scientifically verifiable data. Linguists seem to always be arguing tho. And the concept of a scientific history is rather new in history. The authors of the bible were not aiming to be modern historians.

    Mythologies have a different approach and exist in a different context. Some people (often with a religious fundamentalist bent) don't recognize that these could be different. They take the bible as exact literal historical truth.

    Which is 'right'? I suppose both are within their context. The bible may have lots of truths but some scholars question if writings written a long time after the time of jesus and then shuffled around to get a good grouping is a reliable historical document. There may be some of what we moderns would call history in it but no one can say for sure. The bible authors and editors probably had their own agendas.

    In the classroom creationism is, IMO, not appropriate to teach instead of ancient history or science. The methodologies are different. (I would not use the bible to teach geology for example.) So, yeah, I would privilege some source material over others. That is not mythologizing, but rather contextualizing (geez I can't believe I just used that word....have always hated it.)

    Parent

    well, actually (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 05:06:03 PM EST
    i have zero interest in whether there was or was not a "historical Jesus" - zzzzzzzz

    i was simply saying that Towanda's comment, which does state her opinion, is straightforward & self-evident & has nothing to do with the point that the other commenter read into it

    as for Towanda's opinion, Towanda is a professional historian, & the closest we are likely to get today on TL to the expertise in ancient scholarship that the other commenter upbraided someone else for not possessing

    Parent

    I aso have (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ZtoA on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 08:04:26 PM EST
    huge respect for Towanda, and for you, and I hope I'm not implying otherwise.

    As I understand it Towanda and Observed were arguing about primary sources for historical scholarship. Observed's point was a good one, but in general I think Towanda would argue for being inclusive with sources, and that is good too.

    I'm not really emotionally interested in this subject either. But I do remember being deeply surprised when I learned of the debate a couple of years ago. It felt like a really different conceptual orientation - like suddenly not thinking the earth - or even the sun (!) is the center of the universe. Jesus, like the sun, is in an unquestioned position and just to admit there was a possibility that the jesus story was not 'party line' seemed to shift my brain. :) I thought "are we allowed to question that?" and then another series of thoughts said "who are 'we' and who is 'allowing' and what are the assumptions in the first place?".  (not unlike when I read Guns, Germs and Steel, when for the first time I stepped out of my agrarian mindset and saw it from another perspective.)  IF there was no historical jesus, then, IMO that does not change the core theology of the christian church, and it admits the gnostic gospels into the debate as well instead of rejecting them. It is actually more powerful to me, in that the times simply demanded a savior and a martyr. A mythic reading actually makes sense to me.

    Parent

    absolutely no offense taken, ZtoA (none / 0) (#81)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 09:38:14 PM EST
    i reiterated & elaborated on Towanda's comment because the other commenter distorted its meaning, possibly by misreading the comment

    that's easy enough to do - we all have our hot buttons

    for example, i lost a number of my oldest & dearest friends to HIV/AIDS in the 1980s & 1990s, & i think Ronald Reagan & the rightwing Christianists have a lot to answer for on that score, but my anger over those losses has, in itself, no bearing at all on whether there was or was not a "historical Jesus," kosher or otherwise

    Parent

    You paint with a broad brush (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 05:48:23 PM EST
    Many of the Historical Jesus scholars are most definitely not Creationists.....

    In fact, the opposite seems to be true, as Creationists and Fundamentalists accept the Bible as literal history and need no further research or analysis.

    The Jesus Seminar, which kicked off the current interest in historical Jesus issues a couple of decades ago, was heavily criticized by Fundamentalists....

    It seems you are trying to put me in a Fundamentalist box.   I have never said the New Testament was literal history.....Where did you get that?

    This discussion proves that historical Jesus issues cannot be discussed dispassionately.

    Parent

    that may be your experience (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ZtoA on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 08:13:07 PM EST
    and you seem to have a great interest in religion. I like theology, but not religion as much.

    If you are arguing the the new testament be used as a primary source for historical inquiry then that means you are reading at least parts as literal history. Do you pick and choose?

    I'm sorry if it sounded like I am accusing you of being a fundamentalist. Evidently you are not. It has been my experience, however, that those who are most against questioning the historical jesus have been very invested in the party line story and have been on the conservative side of religion. Its probably a broad field and you have a different experience. As, I think it was Brodie, pointed out, there is a lot of investment in religion. Questioning the factual basis is extremely threatening, especially to those who benefit or profit off of it carrying on in traditional ways

    Parent

    Yes, I do pick and choose (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 08:19:38 PM EST
    It all depends on which part you are talking about.

    So did Jefferson, who created the
    "Jefferson Bible" by cutting out all the miracles and Passion Narrative.

    Parent

    You can pick and choose (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ZtoA on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 08:30:41 PM EST
    according to your beliefs and agendas. It is not a truly historical scholarly approach however.

    But where belief rules, science threatens.

    A quick story... I'm an artist and when I was young and really starving I was offered what I thought was a lot of money to do a painting of jesus. It was for Targets and such. Was going to be in 13 countries and I'd get more as the copyright was extended. I really needed the money and took it even tho I didn't relate to the job at all. I didn't want to do just another of that white guy jesus image which is all over the place. So I researched what people looked like then, clothing and such, and painted a very semitic 30 year old man. Needless to say it was not what they were looking for. They wanted a mythic picture and mine was too accurate.

    Parent

    Pick and choose (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 08:44:19 PM EST
    based on what the best historical scholarship shows is most likely.

    Sure, blue-eyed, blond baby Jesus.....

    I think you will find even Fundamentalist scholars know that is baloney.

    Parent

    The "real one" probably (none / 0) (#41)
    by brodie on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 12:41:28 PM EST
    was one Immanuel (Emmanuel), the prophet whose arrival via virgin birth is foretold in the Book of Isaiah 7:14, and in Matthew 1:23:  "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel, which means 'God with us.'"

    For whatever reason his real name was changed to Jesus H. Christ, important aspects of his life were altered or omitted, and his many radical spiritual teachings were modified or corrupted to conform with later religious doctrine.

    This is the theory, short of proof to be sure, I find makes more sense than the traditional story told for two thousand years.

    There's much more, but I will stop here before this gets even more controversial.

    Parent

    Yes, I was taught, early on (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 12:56:20 PM EST
    that we do not say that we have "proved" anything, as we well may be refuted by new evidence that arises . . . as it always does, if one so tempts the fickle finger of fate to help some shiny, young new scholar to build a career upon refuting us.

    We say that our evidence supports our theories -- or, in some fields, our hypotheses, arguments, etc.  Theories, hypotheses, arguments, all are but ideas.  Evidence is what we have to date, until someone does the next dig, whether through ancient ruins or through auntie's attic.  

    Parent

    Problem is though that (none / 0) (#47)
    by brodie on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 01:14:49 PM EST
    any contemporary digs into ancient terrain or serious research which conclusively contradicts the 2000 year old story of Jesus is likely to be suppressed or destroyed by local religious or governmental authorities.  Too explosive and upsetting to the religious faithful and could put a lot of churches out of business.  Can't have that.

    Parent
    Nag Hammadi survived (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 05:49:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeshua (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    And what Jesus actually said and did is an endlessly fascinating subject.

    Parent
    Endlessly fascinating? Really? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by observed on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 09:39:33 PM EST
    Just those few sentences?
    I'd rather read some actual science, of any flavour, than ponder the maunderings of an ancient zealot, hoping that one more look at the words will give me new meaning. It's bibliomancy, rather than reading.


    Parent
    Sure, because (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:32:27 PM EST
    as someone interested in both religion and history, the history of the early Church and related subjects is very interesting.

    For Western thought, the Bible and the writings of the early Christian writers such as Augustine  are a central touchstone as literature, theology and religion.   It is hard to escape if you want to understand our beginnings here in the West.

    I would grant you that the Bible is less relevant and relied upon than in decades past.  But its prominence is hard to gainsay.

    Parent

    I prefer the OT. There, you can (none / 0) (#89)
    by observed on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 07:20:03 AM EST
    follow a true struggle of ideas, as those who believe struggle with the notion of a God who does not respond to prayer, and who arbitrarily favors some over others. Of course, the ancient Jews were obviously heading towards a realization that there is no God at all.
    Then comes the NT, with the big-toothed Tony Roberts of the ancient world, Saul of Tarsus, purveying absolute epistemological rubbish.
    Instead of a genuine struggle to come to grips with reality, the NT offers the most saccharine of bromides---"Believe in me, and you will live forever". Ugh.

    Parent
    MKS, an exhibit you would have (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 09:48:51 PM EST
    so enjoyed -- as would have some others here -- was a once-in-several-lifetimes opportunity a couple of years ago, on the Dead Sea Scrolls and their modern rediscovery.

    There was lots more coverage of it, in addition to that at the link, if you want to look for more -- including how the amazing opportunity to bring so many documents and artifacts to this country and the specific city occurred.  That's the hometown of the American seminary student who found the scrolls -- and then there's the story of how he had to work desperately to protect them.  It would be quite a movie.

    Parent

    Scratch the word "rediscovered" (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 09:55:57 PM EST
    above; of course, the scrolls were found by locals.  And the story, as ever, became more complex.  

    The story of the American student who identified the scrolls and then desperately photographed all of them with primitive equipment and in difficult conditions -- on the brink of war in the Mideast in 1948, and with all of his supervisors away -- is summarized here.  Other accounts are fascinating.  And his books are listed there, too, about coming upon such a find; his children also, at the exhibit, told stories.

    To imagine that moment of his . . . is to open the mind to the worlds of possibilities abounding around us. . . .  And to never say never.

    Parent

    The existential question (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 03:49:10 PM EST
    So, Towanda: Am I here on earth? Are you?

    And, the Saturday discussions continue (like Saturday discussions :) )

    Parent

    Ha! I wish I could keep debate philosophy (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 08:51:51 PM EST
    but so those who can do so that I would not try.  They are wonderful guests at dinner parties.

    And at seders.  Oh, I just sit and listen in awe, and soak it up.  

    Of course, while they're talking, I also can soak up more of the wine.

    So all I know on this Saturday, like so many, is that we debate, therefore we are . . . wherever we are.

    Now, my philosophical friends would debate why it matters where we are?


    Parent

    Oops, cx: "could debate philosophy" (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 08:52:47 PM EST
    I better stop soaking up the wine.

    Parent
    I tend to agree with you observed (none / 0) (#31)
    by ZtoA on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:32:22 AM EST
    An e-friend of mine runs a discussion about new testament scholarship. Its actually fascinating. He argues against the Historic Jesus and in favor of the Mythic Jesus. Here is a link. I've linked to one specific post but if anyone is interested the entire site is worthwhile. Here's a bit from one of the comments:

    Vridar is discussion of a reconstruction of post execution Jesus traditions based largely on extracts from works of two of our top NT scholars, given our present historical methods and knowledge. A basic conclusion emerges: None of the writings of the NT, the letters of Paul, the Gospels, as well as the later writings of the NT, are reliable sources for HJ reconstruction.


    Parent
    you can't be serious (none / 0) (#95)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 08:52:59 PM EST
    you may not know Jesus was a real historical person, but the rational world does.

    Parent
    btw, the Koran recommends (none / 0) (#20)
    by observed on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 09:35:58 AM EST
    immersing a fly in your drink, for the health benefits. Kosher rules are mostly ridiculous. If some are beneficial, that's hardly a recommendation for the whole lot of them.

    Parent
    To understand (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 10:06:36 AM EST
    how these things came about, you have to put yourself into the time they became common practice. There was likely a valid reason for all them in every culture at the time. A great book that touches on cultural dietary traditions is "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches".

    Parent
    Real choices... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 09:58:53 AM EST
    Following Obama's State of the Union Campaign Speech, Real News Networks' Paul Jay interviewed editor in chief of Reason magazine Matt Welch and Megan Carpentier, executive editor of RawStory.

    January 30, 2012
    Will Progressives and Libertarians Abandon Major Parties?

    video and full transcript here...
    Warcrazed... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 10:42:20 AM EST
    Exclusive: New Iranian Commando Team Operating Near U.S.

        (Tehran, FNA) The Fars News Agency has confirmed with the Republican Guard's North American Operations Command that a new elite Iranian commando team is operating in the U.S.-Mexican border region. The primary day-to-day mission of the team, known as the Joint Special Operations Gulf of Mexico Task Force, or JSOG-MTF, is to mentor Mexican military units in the border areas in their war with the deadly drug cartels.  The task force provides "highly trained personnel that excel in uncertain environments," Maj. Amir Arastoo, a spokesman for Republican Guard special operations forces in North America, tells Fars, and "seeks to confront irregular threats..."

        The unit began its existence in mid-2009 -- around the time that Washington rejected the Iranian leadership's wish for a new diplomatic dialogue. But whatever the task force does about the United States -- or might do in the future -- is a sensitive subject with the Republican Guard.  "It would be inappropriate to discuss operational plans regarding any particular nation," Arastoo says about the U.S.

    -- Iranian Aircraft Carriers in the Gulf of Mexico: It Can't Happen Here

    Quote is Followed by Admission it's Fake (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    Okay, so I made that up. Sue me.  But first admit that, a line or two in, you knew it was fiction.  After all, despite the talk about American decline, we are still on a one-way imperial planet.  Yes, there is a new U.S. special operations team known as Joint Special Operations Task Force-Gulf Cooperation Council, or JSOTF-GCC, at work near Iran and, according to Wired magazine's Danger Room blog, we really don't quite know what it's tasked with doing (other than helping train the forces of such allies as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia).

    Link - same as Edger's

    Parent

    The scenario reminds of (none / 0) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:25:17 AM EST
    the infamous "Zimmerman Telegram" send by German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmerman to his Ambassador in Mexico, creating one, perhaps decisive, incident that helped push the US to declare war against Germany and join the allies in World War I.  The intercepted note (sent in Jan 1917), while claiming to want to keep the US neutral, proposed an alliance between Mexico and Japan, against the US in case of its entry into the war.  Zimmerman admitted sending the note, but whether it was  a foolish ruse to incite Mexico to wage war, remains a question--but whether it was foolish is not.

    Parent
    Oh they'll create a scenario allright... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:40:01 AM EST
    Looks like it'll be something along the lines of "we have to attack Iran to defend our friend Israel from evil attacks by Iran after we give Israel the go ahead to attack Iran..."

    After all, Iran is crazy enough to want to defend itself.

    Payvand's Iran News, 1/23/06
    What is the response of Iran to the U.S. or Israelis threat?
    By Hussein Sharifi

    "We have our sensors in place in the U.S., Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and most Arab countries. We know ahead of the time when they are coming, and since Mr. Bush has given American democracy along with the preemptive strike as the right of everybody in the world, we are going to use it and use it effectively.

    We are present in most of the military briefings of the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq. As soon as we see that it is imminent we hit them and hit them hard... Whether the U.S. or Israel attacks us, we will consider it as Israeli attack since we know how much power they have over the U.S. political and decision-making system."

    If the attack happens, that will trigger the nuclear efforts of Iran. We will definitely go underground and speed up nuclear weapon production, since there will be no choice except to have them and have them soon. Right now we do not need nuclear weapons which are a liability rather than an asset, because we do not have hostile enemy which we cannot smash when we want to.

    The country has been able to stand on its feet for the last 2,500 years and will do so in the future. Look at the last war we had with Iraq, which by the way, was shortest war we had during the last 200 years."

    Hussein Sharifi is a retired military officer who served in Iranian Imperial Army and Islamic republic army and now resides in the United States.

    Parent

    This is not a made up crisis (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 06:21:24 PM EST
    The Iranians are behaving erratically because sanctions are working, they are moving towards a nuke and Israel does indeed feel that it has to attack to defend itself.

    Prior scenarios are useful to evaluate current scenarios, but we shouldnt assume that just because a scenario was BS in the past that all other scarnarios in the future are BS.

    Here no one is even talking about the US attacking anyone.  We are talking about Israel attacking and taking on the primary risk.

    saying that Iraq War = Iran Build Up ignores the fact that this far more complex than a simple analogy could reflect.

    Parent

    Danielle Pletka, AEI... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 11:58:54 AM EST
    American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes

    The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.

    -- watch

    Parent

    A perfect construct for saber rattling plus. (none / 0) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 01:29:01 PM EST
    Iran, unlike North Korea , is in a much less  stable neighborhood and nuclear weapons can not be tolerated.  Iran, sees its nuclear ambitions as a necessary insurance policy against invasion.   So, what else can we do but bomb these ambitions. That tact seems to work out just fine every time.  A consequence-free balancing act.

    Parent
    Good argument for (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 01:49:46 PM EST
    attacking Israel...

    Parent
    No. it is the ambitions that (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 02:19:15 PM EST
    are scary and are constructs for war scenarios-- Saddam yanked babies from incubators -we invaded Iraq because  there were aluminum tubes purchased as well as yellow cake from Niger.   Or, dangerous sequences  such as Afghanistan provinces must be controlled to control Afghanistan. Afghanistan must be controlled to control Pakistan. Pakistan and Afghanistan must be controlled to prevent al Qaeda 's Saudi terrorists from getting on a US airline.

    Parent
    Perfect! (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    They'll buy that! ;-)

    Parent
    Yes, this is my understanding as well. (none / 0) (#90)
    by KeysDan on Sun Feb 05, 2012 at 09:31:18 AM EST
    Germany had been making mischief in Mexico for some time all in the hope of distraction and diversion, tying down American forces and keeping America out of the European war.  From the ruse perspective, Zimmerman claimed, in his telegram, to want to stay neutral with America.  However, if not successful, then they would strike an alliance with Mexico, and urge the Mexican president to do the same with Japan.

    As with the many complexities of this war, a series of events and sentiments moved from staying out to getting in--the staying out included Wilson's hope for a peaceful settlement as well as a national mix of anti-German and anti-British (many Irish Americans) sentiments and a general determination to let the Europeans have their own fight.

    Indeed, the cable communications line for the Zimmerman telegram went through the American Embassy.  But, as you noted with more historical precision than my comment, the submarine campaign was the critical factor.  The release of the Zimmerman telegram, intercepted by the British (which required a cover story of its acquisition) to the American people by  President Wilson, caused public outrage that eased the way for the US declaration of war against Germany and its allies.


    Parent

    Strange sighting here in Maryland: (none / 0) (#61)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 05:23:09 PM EST
    snowflakes.

    Seriously, it's like winter was cancelled or something; we get a couple days where temps go into the 30's but then, it goes up to the 60's and sometimes near-70.

    Am I complaining?  No, not really.  But do like to have one big snow that results in a "free" day off from work, lol.  Hard to believe that two winters ago, we were measuring our snow in feet, and this winter, almost nothing.

    Makes me wonder what Mother Nature has in mind for spring, though - do we get one, or do we just rocket right into summer?

    I would prefer (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 06:45:06 PM EST
    to have winter right now and get it over with because if we don't have it now, we are going to be hit with hideous stuff like 2 feet of snow in March when I am ready for spring and sick of winter.

    The problem we are having is that things are starting to bloom. Daffodils that usually don't bloom until the end of February are already blooming in January.

    Parent

    Friday Night Open Thread | 105 comments (105 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment