River Valley Blogs

The Emperor of Ice Cream wrote on Dec 10, 2008 9:05 AM:

" Okay, you and your independent mind enjoy yourselves. "

harsch please...i dont expect the nonindependent of mind to get it wrote on Dec 9, 2008 7:43 PM:

" As kafka said, Give it up, give it up--and turn away like someone enjoying his own laughter. "

The Emperor of Ice Cream wrote on Dec 9, 2008 4:05 PM:

" Uhhh, OK Harsch. Nice joke......hope you at least had a good laugh.... "

harsch to michael wrote on Dec 9, 2008 3:58 PM:

" Are you beginning to get that sick feeling you used to get as a kid when you got done pulling the wings off flies? Or perhaps more accurately the feeling you might get when you tell Helen Keller jokes? Or when you forget yourself and, seeing a lovely sunset, call out, 'Hey, Helen, look at that!'? I am. "

Michael Welch Anonymous IS Best -- For Your Familys Sake... wrote on Dec 9, 2008 10:36 AM:

" Your minds ARE decaying; so: losing one election does THIS to you?!!! NO ONE writing this tripe SHOULD use his real name; why shame your mother?... "

harsch wrote on Dec 9, 2008 10:32 AM:

" The laughing fish (by now positively guffawing) was a metaphor, and for anyone who gets that it actually is part of a larger joke I could not have told by myself. "

To two thirty five pm poster wrote on Dec 8, 2008 3:47 PM:

" As I said, I don't have one. What relevance does that have to posting here ESPECIALLY when you yourself don't use one? Huh? Tell all of us yours and then perhaps I'll get one. "

To eleven forty six wrote on Dec 8, 2008 2:35 PM:

" Something everyone can talk about? Like "What is your moniker?"?
BTW, what is yours? "

Ronnie to Welchy wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:11 PM:

" What was funny is you getting all fired up and shooting off one of your rambling posts addressing the comment. FIRED UP! "

To Welch wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:05 PM:

" Yeah, Harschs jokes are so funny, like the one about the laughing fish. "

To nine o seven am poster wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:46 AM:

" What is your moniker? You just pop in, make a meaningless comment and then leave. How about adding something of substance to the blog? Maybe something everyone can talk about. How about it? "

Michael Welch OH HE WAS FUNNY -- Like Harsch Is... wrote on Dec 8, 2008 10:40 AM:

" When Harsch 'jokes' it's an endless catastrophe and I'M the one who should 'lighten up'? So is the nameless commenter crying himself to sleep now? What's the 'whine' this time?... "

To Welch wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:07 AM:

" Lighten up. The poster typed a 9 word comment ribbing you guys, and you answer it with one of your 150 word posts? Just let it go, man. "

Michael Welch An InCONVENIENT Admission... wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:59 AM:

" By the way an 'inconVENient truth' is that I must have been tired when attempting to spell 'convenient' below. So even 'the adults' flub at times sure... "

Michael Welch The Children Have Been Left Out -- OH DEAR... wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:56 AM:

" Gee is someone JEALOUS? Petty harassments pushed aside for substantive exchange of IDEAS?! CAN'T HAVE THAT! The righties commenting here have no fun at all with 'ideas'; harassment and perpetual pettiness make the warm tub of melted lard they love to wallow in. Harsch and Welch TALKING to each other about Gandhi and Indian independence! Oh the righties KNOW NOTHING about either -- so like spoiled kids feeling left out of the adults' conversation they have to 'act out' to get attention. You righties never see how transparent your actions REALLY are do you?... "

harsch wrote on Dec 5, 2008 3:37 PM:

" In the early 20s Gandhi's movement was probably strong enough to bring British Rule to an end, and certainly the violence requisite for most successful rebellions was quelled by his writings and, mostly, his powerful supporters. The British were able to string him along to the point where renewed outrage was quelled by a failed peace mission in 1930 (if I recall) and there were no further close calls. During WWII nearly the entire Congress leadership was jailed, so yet again, no organized dissent occurred. After the war, the Brits got out. Without Gandhi, probably a Bengali led, violent revolutionary movement would have spread through India, receiving concessions for their inactivity or support of the Brits during WWI and afterwards they would have succeeded in forcing the Brits out. I think. "

To Welch Harsch wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:47 PM:

" Geez, why dont you two just get a room? "

Michael Welch More When Convient Please... wrote on Dec 5, 2008 10:40 AM:

" When you have the time I invite you to 'expand' on your remarks re: Gandhi and Indian independence. So Gandhi was a 'conservative' force not a radicalizing one -- at least not politically, again sort of like Jesus! Very interesting; thank you... "

harsch wrote on Dec 5, 2008 3:11 AM:

" for a quick start, since I have to go to work soon, I believe that without a monumental force like Gandhi more radical anti-colonial threads would have won out, especially in Bengal, where bombs were going off regularly in the first decade of the 20th century. Gandhi served as a dampening force on them, won over and controlled Congress, and supported the more conservative elements, and more or less converted Nehru from a radical to a pacifist semi-socialist realist, and Gandhi was responsible for the supremacy of Patel, a man of law and order and big business. And of course the Brits didn't leave until 1947, long after the signal events of Gandhi's career, and 28 years after the massacre at Amritsar. "

Michael Welch Question For Rick... wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Oh a question I wanted to ask Rick -- WHY does he believe Gandhi's 'movement' actually HINDERED Indian independence? And I eagerly await his reply and analysis plus anything 'Bowers' might add to the topic... "

Michael Welch I Write Of MY Jesus Not Necessarily Yours... wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:58 AM:

" Christian theology asserts that Jesus is BOTH FULLY HUMAN AND FULLY DIVINE so I prefer to understand his presence on earth as a human being, in particular as a Galilean Jew who decided he would become an itinerant thamaturgue ('faith healer') and quasi-rabbi and who seems to have been quite successful with little apparent training. (I also think he MAY have been either an 'Essene' or re: Graves' 'King Jesus,' the legitimate temporal 'king of Israel.') THAT is the 'historical Jesus' of the gospels BUT if you contend he is the mystical 'Word,' a 'shekinah,' i. e. a kind of manifestation of God or a literal 'son of' or indeed actual 'part' of a triune God, THEN we are in the realm of mysticism, faith and yet more religious dogma and THAT I leave to you... "

harsch on welchean prose wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:51 AM:

" The 'of course' referred to Gandhi, not Jesus. "

Dear Michael wrote on Dec 3, 2008 3:57 PM:

" The last sentence of your 1107am post may be considered arrogant and condescending, due to your use of the phrase "of course". There are many people who DONT believe that Jesus was merely a human. "of course" may be better replaced with "imho". "

harsch to uncle wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:46 PM:

" I hope you understand that as much as I admire Gandhi--moreso now that I've re-read his autobiography--I believe that he did virtually nothing to importantly alter the course of history unless it was to delay the departure of the British from India. That being said, if I ever write my autobiography I advise reading with discretion. "

Michael Welch Enjoying This -- What Next Is Jacques ROUX Eh... wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:18 PM:

" Just to clarify I wasn't saying that autobiographies are not worth reading (hardly!) but I do tend to 'trust' (rightly or wrongly at times) some 'outside' judgment and as per our Nixon discussion on the latest Jim blog there are differing emphases of course. I'm reading now by the way an 'old' (1989 published) history of the French revolution, Simon Schama's well received 'Citizens' which I do hope to work into our conversations! You see I get 'tired' of ordinary 'change' and want sometimes to read about those privileged heads uh 'rolling' -- REAL change eh!... "

Bowers wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:05 PM:

" There's an obvious tendency to glorify great historical figures almost to the point of perfection. Literally, in the case of Jesus. So it's always interesting to read of character flaws in figures like Gandhi or Lincoln. This shouldn't diminish their historical contributions, but simply remind us that they were human. "

harsch to uncle lee wrote on Dec 3, 2008 11:48 AM:

" If I read everything suggested to me even just on this blog, I would have to quite work and would even otherwise go broke. Anyway, I would trust an autobiography written by you to be honest, as I trust Gandhi's to be. I see no obvious reason one would not read autobiographies--you seek truth relentlessly yet believe EVERYONE is dishonest? Further, the very title of the book you suggest is anti-thetical to the history of empire in India. The empire may have been on the verge of falling in the early 20s when Gandhi called off his campaign, and then the end only came in 1947. Most of that time Churchill had relatively little influence in England. In my view the empire managed to hang on as long as it possibly could have, and much as I admire Gandhi I think his overall effect was to help prolong British control. "

Michael Welch Gandhi And Jesus... wrote on Dec 3, 2008 11:07 AM:

" I'm not a fan of autobiographies per se either though of course they are very valuable for insights on how the 'great man' (or woman!) views himself or wants others to view him. And yes there ARE revelations inadvertent at times. It is best I think NOT to expect historical folks to be 'flawless'; at the same time one oughtn't treat them as if they are pariahs and cheats simply because they aren't ideal. Jesus in the gospels often behaves badly and says some truly awful and unfair things about ostensibly 'his people' the Israelites or 'Jews' (from 'Judeans'); BUT he also says some remarkably inspiring and 'revolutionary' stuff as per Gandhi who, like Jesus, was of course also 'human' as are we all... "

Dear Nephew wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:41 AM:

" I have never put much stock in autobiographies for obvious reasons. Let me recommend to you the book I'm currently reading, "Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire" by Arthur Herman "

harsch...reading in bookstores wrote on Dec 2, 2008 4:15 PM:

" In Buenos Aires, a highly literate society, during the post disappearances recession, when most could not afford books, readers would go from one store to another reading a chapter at a time. "

harsch wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:50 PM:

" Further Lee, when Gandhi was in England he basically fell in with a bunch of vegetarians with wildly disparate views; importantly this led him to Ruskin and the less popular works of Tolstoy. The closes he ever came to the occult in his intellectual investigations were his readings of Christian and Hindu works prior to his repairing to the Bhagavadgita. He was an extraordinarily rational man, and the theosophists, who hearkened back to Blavatsky among others had little time for Gandhi, Annie Besant famously shouting at a Congress meeting for him to sit down (and presumably shut up). "

harsch wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:46 PM:

" Dear Uncle, Gandhi was not influenced by Madame Blavatsky--that one I know for sure. Read the autobiography: after all truth was his thing as it seems to be yours. I find him utterly believable, humble, and a remarkable human being.
Regarding socialism, he was never any kind of 'ist', and though his vision was something akin to communist, it was on a cottage industry scale. I know nothing of him opposing the railroad, but I do know that there was more dead from famine in India after the rails were built than before (see the Bengal famine of the forties, but if you have the chance read Amartya Sen on why). "

Michael Welch Empire In TRAINing... wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Well the 'occult' is a variegated place wherein all sorts, as per other religions, may abide, gather and transpose what they will. The discussion about Gandhi is at least interesting but after all if we ARE determined to throw 'racist' around we MUST by today's standard include Abraham Lincoln and really EVERY president of the United States, at one point in his life or another, until maybe Bill Clinton who was 'the first black prez,' not including possibly Lincoln himself and probably Warren G. Harding. And Jesus as I pointed out -- a racist, not prez that is. As for trains maybe India WAS better off as a multi-continent pre-'Sikander' for the Brits held her via trains which is 'proven' in John Huston's 'The Man Who Would Be King' eh... "

Izzy Fabin to Harsch wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:02 AM:

" When is the last time you did some "light" reading? If you have a chance to pick up the new Stephen King collection of short stories, you should do so. Read the last story-"A Very Tight Place". I am curious as to your thoughts on that, particulary the "punishment" the neighbor(called TMF) in the story, chooses for the protagonist. I bet you would love to punish some of the posters here in this way. Seriously, I am interested in your thoughts. Heck, you could probably just read that last story right in the bookstore if you didnt want to buy the book(unless you find that type of thing unethical). "

Lee Bowers wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Ghandi, at least up until his return to India, did not believe in socialism. He was greatly influenced by Tolstoy, and thought a return to the land-so to speak-was the key to a contented populace. He was opposed to the railroads that had been constructed in India, overlooking the fact that this means of transportation helped bind the country together, and helped ease famines by getting needed food to the people quickly. "

Uncle Lee wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:33 AM:

" Prior to living in South Africa, Gandhi was educated in London, and fell in with intellectual New Agers. He was greatly influenced by Madame Blavatsky, though he didn't go in for the occult aspects of her beliefs. Interesting to note that Madame Blavatsky would later be a great influence on Hitler and the Nazis. The occult aspect of the 3rd Reich is something most mainstream historians don't talk about. "

Largely but not Exclusively wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:34 AM:

" Redundancy run wild.
Totally. "

harsch to uncle lee wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:41 AM:

" I haven't read about Gandhi for a long time, so last night i looked for a biography and couldn't fine one, just his autobiography. I read about 50 pages, beginning with his sailing to Natal. He's now been in S.A. a year. It's great reading, alternating so far between his discovery of the treatment of Indians and his religious investigations (very funny one about Christians who don't believe in the possibility of living without sin--and so, he slyly writes, they demonstrate they can't). The picture so far is of a naive young man who nonetheless immediate rebels against injustice. But though there a few references to black Africans, the story of the Indian community is so complex that he is mired in it. No hint of racism so far, but I will continue to read this morning. "

To Harsch wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:02 PM:

" Yes, Umberto D. "

Harsch to...the nameless one two or many wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:49 PM:

" Sorry boys, something of substance came up. "

harsch to uncle lee wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:48 PM:

" From what I have read, Gandhi's approach in South Africa was largely legalistic, which made more sense that far back then it would have later. He largely, but not exclusively, limited his action to lifting the oppression of Indians as citizens of the British Empire, and all in all accomplished very little historically in South Africa. But then he spent some 20 years there developing his ideas and establishing his self-sufficient community. Welch is right that he should be viewed in the context of his times, but calling him racist even from the perspective of today requires a little argument at least. "

Kizarny wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:14 PM:

" Harsch Harsch Harsch....Content analysis would show that Izzys comment about you being racist was not out of the blue. So, the humor of you making an out of the blue comment is lacking, for lack of a valid comparison. Ya know what I mean? "

To Harsch and Bowers wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:11 PM:

" Didnt you guys once agree that Ronnie was one of you? Didnt Harsch say he felt like a "donkey" for not "getting" Ronnies posts?
Now, Harsch is playing detective and is trying to say Ronnie and Izzy are the same? Well, let me ask this: does that mean Izzy is also "one of you"? "

Michael Welch And Jesus Was A Racist Too... wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:35 AM:

" Yes no one is 'perfect'; everyone, even Gandhi, is a person of his times and has had his limitations. Also what someone believes at one period in his life is not what he believes at all times. I think Gandhi saw beyond his South African experience, at least his subsequent behavior and attitudes, especially religious, point to that. And yes Jesus himself expressed 'racism' too; he said that he had come for the Jews alone and that he oughtn't help the goyim, 'the dogs,' such as the Syro-Phoenician woman's daughter. This woman answered him that 'even the dogs get the crumbs' and Jesus got down from his high horse and became his better self again and cured her child... "

Lee Bowers wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:30 AM:

" For what it's worth...on the subject of racism, did you know that Ghandi was racist.

During his years in South Africa, his complaint to the British was their discrimination against Indians in the Natal and other provinces. He felt the Indian population was equal to that of the Brits, but both were superior to the blacks. "

harsch wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:06 AM:

" Take what you want as an apology 'Izzy', the 'joke' was that my comment was as out of the blue as many of the attributions made to me. And you are right that it is not necessarily meant to be funny, instead an attempt to reveal the absurd. You are wrong that anyone has made the case that I am racist or any 'thing' else. The fact that a foolish argument is made is only taken by fools to mean something, especially that characterizes one the argument is apparently against. "

Izzy Fabin wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:19 AM:

" Mr Harsch, within your two rants there was a "hint" of an apology when you stated it should have been obvious your characterization of me was meant as a joke, "humor" if you will. I guess I dont see the humor in accusing someone of supporting affairs between old men and young girls, but to each his own I guess. I didnt "get the joke", so I guess that means Welch has more "wit" than me, as apparently you two have the same sense of humor. But, as for an apologuy, if thats all you are going to offer, I will take it. Hope everyone had a good weekend.
BTW, the "racist" comment wasnt from "out of nowhere". I made a case as to why I thought some of your comments, which focused on a persons race as opposed to their qualifications, were in fact themselves racist. "

Michael Welch Forgetting WhatsIZName -- Remembering McGovern... wrote on Nov 29, 2008 10:22 AM:

" This 'Izzy' is a lizard; he scoots but is never stopping to buy; so hey there Izzy girl but then there's not another 'Izzy' deep inside because there IS no 'Izzy' at all -- worth remembering. He's a deadly DULLARD. I too met McGovern in 1971; he had gone to college with the then head of the UW-L history dept, George Gilkey, and was at the Cartwright Center in the one of the uh 'upper rooms' (the Valkyrie? 'Whoot! Whoot!'?) on a raised platform. Gilkey during the course of McGovern's talk fell off his chair (not injured however) and the SDak senator made a joke about having put George to sleep. I was FAR MORE impressed to later meet Eugene McCarthy but in retrospect it was McGovern who was the 'better' even 'best man'... "

Dear Phil-O from BGS wrote on Nov 28, 2008 4:28 AM:

" Olbermann doesn't seethe with hatred at 'conservatives......he seethes with hatred at the fake conservatives, the dufuses, ideologues, and ignoramuses that pimp themselves off as conservative.

I've got conservative tendencies like we all do. It has been these loud mouths calling themselves conservatives and demonizing liberals (shows their stupidity) that back up or carry out legislation and actions totally opposite of true conservatism.

Look at the huge big gov't spending under Republican leadership...Reagan and Dubya. All the Dem's combined in our History couldn't outspend those two dipsticks.

Nation Building? Spying? Putting the nose in bedrooms? Wasting US resources?

Ain't nothing conservative about that krappe, my friend. "

Roscoe wrote on Nov 27, 2008 8:17 PM:

" amdrew Sullivan voted for Kerry and Obama. He is pro gay marriage,abortion and gun control. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Nov 27, 2008 8:17 PM:

" I never watch conservative commentators and I also never listen to them on the radio. I always come away with just the same feelings that Phil O Bates has about liberals. I have been mellowing a little in my old age though and have lately been reading some of the articles in the USA Today from Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel. As much as I disliked Thomas and his views the fact remains that even he can come to "Common Ground". Of course you can't always do that but in todays world it's kind of nice when you can... on Jimmy's blog too. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Nov 27, 2008 7:58 PM:

" To Michael: I just wanted to let you know that I got to meet George McGovern at a book signing in LaCrosse once and he did sign a copy of his book for me. I still have it to this day. Needless to say it wasn't to "Richard Cranium"... I never got to vote for him as I'm much younger than you... just kidding again. How different things might have been in our country if he would have defeated Nixon. "

harsch...again wrote on Nov 27, 2008 4:46 PM:

" So Welch, who gets me, defends me and ends up arguing with the likes of Fabin, who apparently gets very little and is a base hypocrite on top of it. He NEVER argues my serious posts, but feigns victimization when I stoop to his level--in humor, as Welch had the wit to observe. I thought I would not explicate like this, but it has all gotten so silly that I don't believe there's any harm in giving idiots more ammunition (god forbid they should ever need such ammunition to save themselves) by explaining myself. So, gentlefolk, do you want to discuss the merits of me, or, say, my analysis of America's 'implrovement' on colonialism? "

harsch...the happy rick challenge wrote on Nov 27, 2008 4:42 PM:

" Whenever I have posted quite seriously I have been met mostly by silence, somewhat by distortion via taking out of context, and at times by strenuously twisted summaries that have nothing to do with what I have written. A recent example is a few blogs back when I wrote about cliches: I.Fabin respond basically with 'Blah blah blah'. And he claims he aims to teach. When I do get responses is when I get personal, often because of high doltery like Ronnie Gosset's recently in which he began fantasizing about liberals and ended in his own fantasy land. Now the 'issue' is my unfair characterizations, out of the blue, which came after weeks of reading the same done to me (I am racist, is a popular meme). "

Richard Cranium wrote on Nov 27, 2008 11:34 AM:

" Once again I was going to post but Harsch's one o eight pm post sums it up for me. I couldn't express it any better than that. I hope everyone can reflect on the things that you could be thankful for and enjoy them. Happy Thanksgiving! "

Mr.Herberrt wrote on Nov 27, 2008 10:07 AM:

" Andrew Sullivan endorsed both John Kerry and Obama. He is not a conservative. "

Phil O Bates wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:04 PM:

" Juan Williams, and Morah Liason. While I listen to other liberal commentators like Colmes and Oberman, I find their seething hatred to anything Conservative or Republican disruptive, so I usually don't stay listening very long. "

Sam wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:50 PM:

" I am paleocon through and through, and love reading Christopher Hayes and Robert Dreyfuss of the Nation magazine, both Alexander and Patrick Cockburn at Counterpunch, Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com, Professor Juan Cole's blog Informed Comment, Robert Fisk of the UK's Independent, and Matthew Yglesias, formerly of the Atlantic. "

Dear happymom wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:37 PM:

" What's a modern feminist? Women's reproductive rights laws equal to the Islamic Republic of Iran's reproductive rights laws? "

harsch wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:06 PM:

" Yield! Yield! Wherefrom this fencing term. Did you need that to awaken thee, Zorro? Take up the cry ye argumentators: Yield! To quote from Albee: it takes a swine to show you where the truffles are--and indeed it IS blood that flows under the bridge. I, foul racist under the bridge, namecaller, refuser of deep deep deep intellectual challenges, know nothing of yielding to swine, but I do like my truffles! Yield! Invent a cliche if you know one not. "

Izzy Fabin wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:24 PM:

" Just one more comment regarding the whole Harsch over 40/under 15 thing. This is a time of Thanksgiving, so if Harsch is willing to yield and admit his moral failure(as others have requested), I would like to begin this holiday weekend with a clean slate. I would like to let bygones be bygones, and start exchanging real ideas and discussing real issues with everyone. With that, I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving.
Take care, Izzy "

To happymom from Jimmy wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:44 PM:

" I knew I could count on you! Thanks for the interesting idea (for today's post). Hope all is well with you and yours, and a Happy Thanksgiving. "

To Mr. Harsch from Jimmy wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:42 PM:

" You could very well be correct about the flaw in my premise. At any rate, I hope this finds you and your wife doing well. "

Harsch wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:13 PM:

" That being said, I do find surprising instances of independent thought enjoyable, and it happened twice recently with some guy on FOX whose name I don't recall (Seth something?), and dramatically with Chris Matthews when he talked to a San Diego radio show host who had no idea what Neville Chamberlain did to attach his name permanently to the concept of appeasement. Matthews was so disgusted at the guy's clear lack of knowledge the issue became, more or less, why he was talking about anything in public at all. "

harsch wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:08 PM:

" I think the premise is flawed, Jimmy. If there are fundamental assumptions and rationales that make up a world view, the person adhering to said world view may not find anyone at all on the far side of it compelling to read or listen to. I do however enjoy many people who are to my right, but only on occasion. For instance Bill Moyers, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow. George Will is the one most would mention, but I don't think he's ever expressed a comprehensive opinion I didn't fundamentally disagree with and I have rarely found him particularly bright, though he is interesting at times when he discusses baseball. "

Michael Welch Clarifying Buchanan... wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:48 PM:

" I'll say a little bit more about Buchanan if I may: I find his greatest appeal for me in his strong principled opposition to what I call the AMERICAN empire which PB dates as developing around the turn of the last century with William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt et. al., while I'd assert that the 'empire' was in the making from the beginning of the republic albeit it was concentrating on THIS continent -- 'sea to shining sea' eh. Buchanan BRAVELY opposed the wars in Iraq and even the horrid Clinton era sanctions and as a prez he'd 'step back' from the mania for world wide dominance I've thought and how refreshing! On abortion and gay stuff oy vey! But then MOST OF ALL I HATE the warS as I've always said... "

Rachel Maddow wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:34 PM:

" Personally, I like watching and listening to Rachel Maddow. She's excellent, and in tune with the populist pulse. "

Brudos wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:28 PM:

" Maybe the networks should put together a political version of The View, starring Bill Clinton, George H W Bush, Dennis Miller, and Bill Maher. Now to me, that would be Fair and Balanced. How fun would that be to watch? Would you watch it? "

Michael Welch You Know Camille Paglia -- Good For You... wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:24 PM:

" I myself was once rather 'besotted' with Camille Paglia's 'Sexual Personae' though Harsch thought she was kind of silly especially in her assertions of 'female superiority' and male fear plus her adherence to Freud. She was a lover of American film, in particular the mixed but wondrous 'bag' of the 'classic era' -- I deem that roughly from 1914 ('Birth of a Nation') to oh 1965 for an arbitrary but reasonable 'close.' Paglia exalted the great women stars like Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Katharine Hepburn, Barbara Stanwyck, Jean Arthur, Rita Hayworth, Lana Turner, Vivien Leigh and there are SO MANY MORE as modern equivalents to the gods and goddesses of antiquity. True I still say... "

happymom wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:21 PM:

" To remove any doubt, yes, I am a woman, the true embodiment of the modern feminist minus the armpit hair, butch haircut, and lust to abort babies. I am a happy mom. I am happy to play the right-wing "Sean Hannity" to Jimmy's left-wing "Alan Colmes" on these blogs, but with much more grace than Sean sometimes shows. As for lefties I love, I like people who can make me laugh. Though he is not a political commentator in the true sense, Seth MacFarlane, creator of the animated sitcom Family Guy, makes me giggle at his obvious pokes at conservatism in the show. James Carville doesn't make me puke, Arriana Huffington sure does. Bill Mahr, again because of the comedy he injects, is tolerable. I'm sorry Jimmy has added Glenn Beck to his Makes Me Puke Column. One of my favorites, he is sarcastic, ironic, witty, and a good-hearted person. "

the woman wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:19 PM:

" Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers of Fox News and sometimes Bob Beckel "

BrianGSmith wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:16 PM:

" I agree with "the man"...I liked William Buckley. I also liked that guy Colin Powell's recent take on things. George Will and Buchanon can make sense some times.

In the 'mainstream' I see none worthy of the oxygen they consume. "

To Cagefighter from Brudos wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:03 PM:

" About your friend comment - Some of my best friends are as "right" as you can find. So there's always something to talk about, and it's never boring. It's like having vikings fans around for friends while your routing on the Packers. It definately helps liven things up for sure. When I'm with my more liberal friends, we just sit around complaining or agreeing on everything, and there's just no fun in that! "

Brudos wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:55 AM:

" My favorite local radio host rightie is Mike Hayes on La Crosse Talk AM. For TV, I like Pat Buchanan, and Dennis Miller. As guests or commentators, I like Ari Fleichser and Tony Snow. Oh, and I love watching Bill Kristol talk about anything. The guy is about as crusty as they come. "

theman wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:27 AM:

" I always enjoyed reading William F Buckley. It is too bad his voice is now silent. He was witty and logical; erudite and entertaining. Kathleen Parker has the courage to not toe the line and is a terrific writer. "

Way to go happymom wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:06 AM:

" The big story here is happymom making the headline! She's one mightie rightie! You go gir ...er ...person!! "

Allen Coage wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:04 AM:

" Good column Jimmy. It forces people to think, and you learn things you would never have suspected. I would have never guessed Welch would have preferred Buchanan over Obama.
Anyway, I have always liked Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. "

Ronnie Gossett wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:52 AM:

" Slightly off topic, but that story in breaking news about the Dells police officers is pretty scary. What would officers like this do if they had LOTS of power? That is why we must be wary of people like Harsch and BGS. I can totally see them doing that to someone who disagrees with them if they somehow had the power to do so. It goes to the idea of thinking of those with opposing views as your mortal enemy(so much that you would make up lies like the over 40/under 15 thing)rather than just someone who holds different views. "

Jeff wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:37 AM:

" Camille Paglia, Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Bob Beckel, and of course, Jimmy. "

Michael Welch For President Buchanan -- Uh PAT Not James... wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:30 AM:

" And re: 'Bowers' while I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 I would also prefer Buchanan as a president to even Barack Obama because as I've noted before Obama is essentially one of the (we hope!) 'good emperors' and his decision to retain Robert Gates as defense sec'y (is that uh 'change' -- no change?) confirms that and prefigures the 'shift' in the warS to Afghanistan. Scuttle this morn on NPR actually implies that the O may be 'reconsidering' the SIXTEEN MONTH 'deadline' for US troop withdrawal. Ah campers you can surely comprehend why I lionize such as George McGovern (whom I voted for -- my first and BEST vote ever!) but I hardly appreciated his quality then as much as I do now... "

Michael Welch Sure Ill Join In The Game... wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:19 AM:

" I am an 'old' admirer of George Will and actually during the 1980s I myself was also somewhat 'notorious' as a Reaganiteish regular contributor to the Tribune's letters columns, as difficult as that may be to comprehend today! (I admit I have always felt an unease and even dislike re: the religious right and even then.) I don't follow Will as I used to but I do see David Brooks as the 'new Will' in that neither conservative columnist-commentator hesitates to criticize conservatives and/or Republicans when they goof. Pat Buchanan is highly reminiscent today (despite his TERRIBLE Nixon's hatchet man as speechwriter days; Buchanan helped compose the rhetoric of 'Nixonland') of a venerable so called 'neo-isolationist' Herbert Hoover-Robert Taft Republicanism that I've ALWAYS found attractive... "

Izzy Fabin to Cagefighter wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:46 AM:

" You're kidding! You mean Mahr didnt accuse Huckabee of approving of affairs between men over 40 and girls under 15?
I know my question is silly--no sane person would ever do that without any foundation, unless they were vile and ugly. "

Starfish wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:38 AM:

" For conservative-worthy-of-respect: Fareed Zakaria. I'll concur with--or at least concede the intelligence of--George Will (though occasionally ethically challenged in supporting subjects he is financially vested in) and David Brooks. Kathleen Parker I'll credit with her "no mas" on Palin. Although I do agree with you and Dr. Bowers on the good humor of Pat Buchanan, I don't approve of the "family business" getting face time for his sister, Bay--she is a genuine lightweight. "

Cagefighter wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:12 AM:

" I wonder what Happymom thought when she read the headline of the blog today? I cant imagine what I would think if I ever woke up and saw "Cagefighter" somewhere in the title!
I consider myself more conservative than liberal, so I will take the challenge from that angle. I will start off with just a couple, because to be honest I am not much of a talking heads type person, and would be hard pressed to even name more than a couple conservative commentators I truly like.
With that in mind, I always did enjoy Alan Colmes. And, this may shock people, I was very pleasantly surprised by Bill Maher.
Speaking of Mahr, his recent appearance on Mike Huckabees show, where they fundamentally disagreed but still respected one another, was a great example of not demonizing the other side. They both mentioned they consider the other a friend. "

Lee Bowers wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:55 AM:

" I've always liked Pat Buchanan. I thought he would have made a great president. Back in 2000, he was more 'left' than Al Gore on issues like NAFTA, the sanctions that were killing so many children in Iraq, and the plight of the Palestinians. I disagreed with him on his opposition to gay marriage, but I still voted for him. He's an excellent speaker, with a sense of humor. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »