Cartoon Strip: Nota Bene by Leonardo No. 78 - McCain Makes His Case

---

Jefferson January 27, 2008 6:23 pm (Pacific time)

People please note how some use "bait and switch tactics" to avoid substantive debate. This is apparent as I simply asked earlier to have a poster explain what my statement regarding a "socialistic policy" has to do with a government type, he then admitted that he didn't know what he was doing or writing about, that was quite clear by his last post, which was nuanced! ( see 10:37/1-23 post and how the agitators distort it. Classic liberal fascist methodology- be wary of these types). I guess some folks just hate to deal in facts, they just hate facts! This why the Republican Presidential-elect come next November needs to immediately let it be known that a no-nonsense policy be developed to remove liberal fascists from the public school system. The older ones are heading down the food chain soon anyway, so they are quite irrelevant! They will just continue to bellow in the headwinds...only a few likeminded will notice, but they won't care, for the narcissistic, it's just about themselves...which you are about to see real soon.

---

Henry Ruark January 27, 2008 3:56 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Please note that the usual "misunderstanding" is now multiplied,"misunderstanding" the "misunderstanding". Seems awesome waste of good white space, time, attention and what remains of any good faith once taken for granted, don't you agree ? Might help if direct-report to each other was workable, but that's been refused any number of times when offered. SO best thing is simply to ignore when found...saves each of us time, energy, attention and perhaps some small frustration. Nonentity is what nonentity will continue regardless, as 40 years of same patterns from same group has proven. For details of the continuing pattern, now being targeted on many open channels nationally, see "Republican Noise Machine"; David Brock; ISBN 0-307-23689-7.

---

Jefferson January 27, 2008 11:51 am (Pacific time)

Neal I can "clearly" see your nuanced misinterpretation admission that you provided in your own "special" way as per your below post that "fails" to address that a "socialist policy" has nothing to do with "government-type" but that of a "type of legislation" , regardless of the government-type it was developed in. Way to go, and very clever for someone of your educational background...very clever. The other poster I see maintains the same status quo of misunderstanding, maybe if one re-reads my 10:37 (1/23) post, it will help clear up their confusion, maybe not?!

---

Henry Ruark January 26, 2008 1:15 pm (Pacific time)

To all: IF Neal is to be held to response expiating statements on "socialistic", how about public apology due me for brutal "misunderstanding" re "attack on veterans' ? Please note your own word was "misunderstanding", which surely then demands remediation from any ethical conscientious participant here or in any other channel. IF you unknown, non-ID'd here, why should we pay any attentiion to your s...(Stuff) at all ? One can hardly address anything sensible to a hole in the wall...never know what may be there, such as further demeaning remarks aimed at Neal. If you require short reference to morality, see other threads where Roman philosopher quoted especially for this problem. Do you wish, now, to enter into dialog with him, too ?? Feel free, should be highly amusing...

---

Neal Feldman January 26, 2008 1:06 pm (Pacific time)

Jefferson - why in the world would I admit to misinterpretation when I misinterpreted nothing> In other words why should I LIE (in other words act like YOU) for your benefit? It makes no sense to do so. You really should just stop throwing in your inaccurate inflammatory buzzwords or I will keep calling you on your intellectual dishonesty in your doing so. That, or you can show us all even one socialist or communist government that has ever existed on the planet. I never said you were discussing nations but policies do not exist in a vaccuum... if you are discussing policies and calling them socialist or communist you must point to the sources... and you have not done so. You cannot claim, as you do, that such policies are 'failed' if they have never, in actuality, ever been TRIED. Do you still not see the problem you have? (Clearly you do not... pathetic). As for emails you have received... so what? so there are a few as deluded and factless as you are (or, shudder, even more so). And where do they even get your email from your posts? So they are not responding to your posts, they are just friends of yours. Again, hardly a statistically valid sampling. I switched nothing and it is you who continue the smoke and mirrors charade. If you dislike a policy argue it on the merits.. do not just try and use inflammatory buzzwords to further your flawed and fallacious excuse for critical thinking. But for anyone who cares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_and_mirrors and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch should suffice. Ah well...

---

Jefferson January 26, 2008 11:42 am (Pacific time)

Neal I was hoping you would be able to respond to my 10:11 post with at least an admission that you misinterpreted the phrase "socialistic policies" as I used in a below post. The context was quite clear as per several emails I have received from other readers. I was not discussing some nation(s) that were/are socialist. I can see where another would not get it, but thought you would get it? I guess you gave it the ol' college try, huh? So what's the origin of statements like "smoke and mirrors" or "bait and switch?" Do you think it goes back to the wandering days of the desert bazaars?

---

Anonymous January 26, 2008 7:08 am (Pacific time)

To all: Cittion of historical precedent is a standard part of professional punditry, too...so here's a strong one re currently needed morality: "So let us regard this as settled: what is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious." Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) "A man who has in mind an apparent advantage and promptly proceeds to dissociate this from the question of what is right shows himself to be mistaken and immoral. Such a standpoint is the parent of assassinations, poisonings, forged wills, thefts, malversations of public money, and the ruinous exploitation of provincials and Roman citizens alike. Another result is passionate desire - desire for excessive wealth, for unendurable tyranny, and ultimately for the despotic seizure of free states. These desires are the most horrible and repulsive things imaginable. The perverted intelligences of men who are animated by such feelings are competent to understand the material rewards, but not the penalties. I do not mean penalties established by law, for these they often escape. I mean the most terrible of all punishments: their own degradation."Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

---

Henry Ruark January 25, 2008 5:54 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Neal is correct that neolib and neocon are too close for real differences. As matter of history, those who became leaders as neocons were in part once-liberals liberated by leaders of their party because they moved too far towards those conned out of connection in the then-real "conservative" group...so you see all such have sure sore reasons for constant complaint vs any-and-all points of view other than their own now sure stomach-churning ones. Easy to see why anyone will resent "neocon" epithet, but some cannot avoid it no matter intensity of pretensities used, since obvious behaviors demonstrate conclusively what they truly are.

---

Neal Feldman January 25, 2008 4:42 pm (Pacific time)

Well I looked around a bit and found something very funny... clearly Jefferson has put his foot in it again assuming 'neolib' would be the opponents of 'neocon' therefore that Henry and I would be 'neolibs'. I found a little treatise on Neo-Liberalism at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8731/neolib.html that pretty much shows 'neolibs' are those supporting free trade/NAFTA and the like, supporting reductions in the social safety nets, etc. Sure comes across, without the accompanying theocracy of the neocons, as pretty much the same policies as the neocons. Hardly anything, though, that would be appropriately applied to either Henry or myself. Ahain Jefferson clearly proves he has no idea what he is talking about. My, what a surprise that is considering his posting history! Ah well...

---

Neal Feldman January 25, 2008 4:33 pm (Pacific time)

Jefferson - no misinterpretation on my part. You and your neocon ilk continuously harp about how bad socialism and communism (or their 'policies') are when there has never been such an actual govt in existence. So how can you claim such non-existent things are bad since, due to their non-existence, you can have no credible evidence to support your clearly baseless conclusions? What do China and the ex-USSR have to do with it? They are the two 'examples' of communism or socialism cited by your neocon ilk. So the fact that neither of them was ever truly socialist or communist is quite relevant in assessing the irrelevancy, inaccuracy and truthfulness of your statements/claims when you start throwing around words like socialist or communist. Your whine about 'policies vs govt' is lame and feeble. One cannot have one without the other. You cannot make a relevant argument against the policies so you try and paint them with the bogeyman buzzwords of 'socialist' or 'communist' (How HUAC of you!) And no tangent... you have been pinned and you just don't like hoe easily your partisan prattle is dissected and dealt with. And what is this 'neolibs' nonsense? More of your lowbrow attempts at cleverness that never seem to work for you? Sure seems that way. To appear clever it really helps if you ARE clever, which you clearly are not. Ah well...

---

Henry Ruark January 25, 2008 3:53 pm (Pacific time)

To all Frustration slowly coming home to roost, producing painful personal recognition of fundamental flawed relation with most others here. Realizing cannot impose old command-and-control pattern on perturbed and probing readers ready for reality when it hits them over the head with D.C. duplicity, while they struggle for next rent payment. (See Op Ed and OCPP story.) Few here have funds for that funny-stuff in WStreet, where playing "speculator" long ago took over for "investor", and nobody holds stocks more than 6 months, seeking best-return even if it drives millions from jobs, builds overseas trade forcing borrowing billions, leaving U.S. in the lurch when recession arrives, with China, India ready to call the turn on banks and real estate debtors, with U.S. in deficit deeper than ever before. "Deregulation", it is called; read "fleecing the naive and seducing the so-called 'smart guys', too !" It results in stock-playing game called "short-termism" and is deep doo-doo into which even the most adept CEO dares not step since then cometh the take/over team or the fearful merger-men, when stock drops ONLY a LITTLE bit ! (Kiss million-dollar bonus goodby.) Bet this makes more sense to more readers than irrelevant ranting re "you misunderstood my Comment !" OR "watch out for (insert name), sure to be socialist !"

---

Henry Ruark January 25, 2008 10:17 am (Pacific time)

To all: Sorry Comment escaped prematurely...I'm "anon" who happened to overhear Gov. Sprague.

---

Jefferson January 25, 2008 10:11 am (Pacific time)

So Neal, what does (your 10:17-1/24) post have to do ( with my reference to "socialistic policies") and your misinterpretation of my (10:37-1/23) post and you going on about China and Russia? Hey thanks a lot if and when you can clearly explain that to me. Say have you ever heard this definition of "frustration" (not referencing less than sterling critical reading and thinking skills, by the way).?: Well true "frustration" is when you have no one else to blame , and often true frustration provides the stimulus that can create positive change, even a positive paradigm shift(see Thomas Kuhn-great read). So do you think it may be possible that neolibs never experience true frustration? P.S. Henry thanks for that great analysis, but if it is about my 10:37 post, then it appears both you and Neal are off on the same tangent, if not, then thanks again, I will file it under "interesting reads by Henry". P.S.S. I did view the cartoon and I think it's really good! Lot better than much of the Jack Ohman stuff I see. I will look forward to future works. My 10:37 post was a response to the narrative preceding the toon , get it?

---

Henry Ruark January 25, 2008 9:56 am (Pacific time)

For those to whom my repeated "belly-button" reference may be unfamiliar: Former Gov. Sprague, longtime heroic publisher of the Salem STATESMAN before Gannett consolidated it with the evening Journal, was besieged at his office door by a dissident, who ended his attack with the declration " So THAT's MY opinion !". Sprague responded: "No, sir...that's what we here in this shop term a 'belly-button feeling'...since everybody has one and they are all about the same." Just so happened I was there and heard this exchange...

---

Henry Ruark January 25, 2008 9:16 am (Pacific time)

To all: Again our constant negative commenter demonstrates pitiful lack of solid understandings of honest dialog. He protests re precise definition of "socialist" OR "socialistic"...overlooking the fact that any judgment of policy MUST be objective, since policy is in itself an opinion formed by SOMEone as to WHAt "should" be done re SOMEthing, or "could" be done re the same thing...and that is obviously a judgment. SO to smear something with the word "socialist" OR with the alternate expression "socialistic" is simply to reiterate that SOMEbody has an opinion about SOMEthing...and to express a further opinion --that of the commenteer--as to what it really signifies. AND "opinion", unless built from professional study, as doeth a doctor or a judge OR a professional pundit, is and always will be, unavoidably, a "belly-button feeling". Without requisite, demanded special study, how can it be otherwise ? Professional pundits get paid for that excruciatingly difficult work, demanding deep dedication to integrity, to overcome unavoidable emotional and background impacts from which everyone unavoidably suffers, and thus demanding responsibility and accountability to guarantee the credibilities for which they are paid. All of that is solid reason to know your pundit prior to placing any profound belief in his propensities, and to "see with own" eyes his sources for evaluation by YOUR brain,prior to any dedication to the directions in which those opinions point. That's why all truly human conversation rests so heavily on unconscious understandings of credibilities, necessarily built on acceptance --OR often rejection !-- of what your major instincts inform you is the necessary protective attitude and acceptance. That's why ID is sometimes essential here, and that's why the working rule here now is that ID should be made known on request, as the essential working proof of good faith and good preparation for any ongoing dialog.

---

Neal Feldman January 24, 2008 10:17 pm (Pacific time)

Jefferson - We nee only look at the current administration, the most corrupt and failed administration which has overreached power more than any administration in the history of the US, to see your idea of 'leadership'. Thanks, but no thanks. Had enough of your neocon tripe for several lifetimes. And in casr you missed the memo this is not now nor has it ever been a theocracy. Get a clue. Ah well...

---

Jefferson January 24, 2008 1:04 pm (Pacific time)

Note: I referenced "socialistic POLICIES", not a socialist/communist government. Too much glare? Floaters?

---

Jefferson January 24, 2008 12:58 pm (Pacific time)

All I see going on between the democratic candidates is not just confusion and "endless whining", but they demonstrate a complete lack of not just a Presidential type of leadership, but any leadership ability at all. Though I do realize that this blatant leadership void may just be what some want...like the moveon.org and Soros types, they like puppets! The positive aspect of all this whining stuff going on is that America will get to know real quick that the democratic party is incapable of providing leadership (think that this is happening very quickly now...thank you Bill, Hill, and Obama), and not just for these times, but at anytime. Suffice, by next October there will be no surprise that we will have something similar to what Reagan's landside victory was. God bless America, and I pray that the bad thinker's learn to overcome their dysfuntion, of course if it's innate, tough...

---

Leonardo January 24, 2008 10:57 am (Pacific time)

Thanks, Hank. I very much appreciate your kind words and continued support.

---

Henry Ruark January 24, 2008 9:20 am (Pacific time)

To all: For really striking confirmation of my first Comment, I dare YOU now to read the text above describing the cartoon sequence; then check empty generalizations on which I commented. One would gather the commenteer had never bothered to view the meaningful strip, even the first frame ! That's typical of false punditry built only on belly-button feeling, which is what is supplied in most of this source-output. Glen's strip continued to be one of best nationally, as I can confirm from 30 years of work reviewing this format.

---

Henry Ruark January 24, 2008 9:13 am (Pacific time)

To all: Honest democratic dialog, as intended here, surely not strengthened a damned bit by open-ended generalizations, even commonsense ones, which this mess surely is not. Such as: "Hopefully they will vote for what we need as a nation, and not for their ideological desire." Is it just barely possible that there may be NO CONFLICT therein between what they desire, ideologically or otherwise, and what the nation needs ? After all that is the root concept of democracy, here thoroughly fuddled and "obfuscated" again by psychotic need to express publicly and play role of pundit when impossible so to do for complex psychological reasons, as well as continued political naivete.

---

Neal Feldman January 23, 2008 11:25 pm (Pacific time)

Oh please! On the gop side you have a bunch of old white guys all with as much or as little experience as the others. On the dem side you basically, from a voter standpoint, have a woman, a black guy and a white guy. Far less homogeneous. So of course those differences will be highlighted since on the issues there really is not a whole lot of difference between the dem candidates. With the gop candidates all you have are differences... different ideas on theocracy to different ideas on fiscal policy. And where do you get that socialist policies have 'never worked' since there has never been a socialist or communist government on the planet? Just because a govt claims, or is called, socialist or communist does not make it so. If you knew what socialism and communism actually were beyond the use as epithets by neocons like yourself, you would understand what I am saying. China and the old USSR is/was military backed oligarchies not socialism or communism. Get a clue. Ah well...

---

Jefferson January 23, 2008 10:37 am (Pacific time)

So far what I have noticed about this primary season is on the democratic side we have some very upsetting, even childlike behavior going on between the candidates, e.g. , playing the "race" and "inexperienced" cards, with the latter one quite appropriate (ironically for all the dems) and the former, not unpredictable, but very sad. On the Republican side I see a process that shows that different candidates with different views are providing thoughtful debate and the voter can eventually winnow out who they see as their eventual candidate. Unfortunately I see no strong leader emerging in either party, but what we need during these times is someone who has experience as an executive, that has proven executive leadership experience in both civilian and political arena's. Most of these candidates are Washington insider's who pander and flip-flop, so it will probably end up, at least for the unbiased clear-thinking voter, to decide who is the best of this group. Hopefully they will vote for what we need as a nation, and not for their ideological desire. My wish is that a significant percentage of voters realize that socialistic policies have never worked, and national healthcare has never been successful anywhere, especially in Canada or Europe.

[Return to Top]

---

©2024 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.