All Life Is Problem Solving

5 responses so far ↓

• 1 DavidByron // Dec 7, 2009 at 12:45 am

  Well I’ve been banned from FDL so you should probably take me off that list.

• 2 Joe // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:09 am

  Hi David, Sorry, I had no idea. I’ll make the correction in the comments at FDL and also in future versions of the list. I wonder what could have precipitated the banning of such a gentle and civil soul as yourself?

• 3 DavidByron // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:55 am

  It would have been my support for gender and nationality equality; specifically my criticism of feminist sexism and my assertion that when US soldiers take part in a criminal war they should be punished for it. These are both sacred cows of the pseudo-left and both tend to be used as ways to co-opt the pseudo-left (ie progressives) to imperialist wars.

  Oh– or were you being sarcastic? 🙂

  What got lambert banned? He hasn’t been banned from OpenLeft yet and they banned me on sight. His only issue is single payer and I can’t see how he’d manage to offend too much with that since the faux-left gives lip service to it all the time (even though they all pretend capitalism “works” except maybe Michael Moore).

• 4 Joe // Dec 7, 2009 at 2:17 am

  Nope, I wasn’t being sarcastic. I generally don’t do that. Your point of view was pretty far out, but it is internally consistent and deserved to be heard.

  lambert got banned in the exchange here: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/04/blue-america-for-single-payer/comment-page-1/#comment-64987

• 5 DavidByron // Dec 7, 2009 at 3:19 am

  Wow. That is some nasty stuff that I had not seen. At best Jane Hamsher has a foul temper and a short fuse it seems. Wow. And not just for lambert.

  There are several questions she really needs to answered before I would be willing to trust her with any of my money. I say this as someone who would really have loved to trust her but reluctantly conclude now that she is deceiving her audience. (And no I didn’t say any of this before I was banned because at the time I felt I could simply ask her to explain the inconsistencies in what she was saying).

  She raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to bolster the CPC to support a robust PO and then told us later that she wasn’t at all surprised to see that almost none of them stood by the promises they made while taking that money. That seems like taking money under false pretenses to me. I bet a lot of people were surprised about that and wish they had not contributed.

  Furthermore she is defending the CPC’s actions with strawman arguments saying that she never made them promise to support medicare +5% which is a non-issue. The issue is the “robust” in “robust PO”. Clearly the PO that the house passedwas not robust and they voted for it anyway. Hamsher defends them. That appears dishonest.

  She says there is no way that there will not be a bill but at the same time argues that it would be impossible to pressure the government to redo the PO by getting a tiny number of house congressmen or even one senator to vote down the bill.

  She initially collected hundreds of thousands to vote down the bill if it didn’t have a strong PO but now supports the bill with a weak PO. (The same change that came over Chris Brown at Open Left)

  I was not the only one asking her about these contradictions; selise was too, at a minimum. She never answered these questions.

  I’d love to trust her but she’s been acting deceptively. I can understand the anger and snapping at people like lambert and at single payer people as a whole as just her depression over failing (which of course she refuses to see as a fail – another deception). But now I question even that. Her anger is awfully convenient and would an activist / lobyist really have so little people skills as that?

  There’s something odd going on.

  And I see it as part of a wider pattern which I alluded to in other comments before you mentioned this latest about Jane Hampshire. For whatever reason the left becomes corrupted as it reaches towards power. Hamsher herself says this with her Veal Pen metaphor (excellent one) although her explanation may be partial as it seems a lot of the time its also about funding and not just contacts.

  Also as stated Chris Brown did the same thing.

  Over at the pffugee camp we also talked about the odd way that Code PINK did a 180 on demanding the immediate end of the Afghan war to supporting a pansy-assed gradual withdrawal, and elsewhere explored how Narco News appears to have financial links to the CIA and/or PNAC.

  Just as Chomsky sought to explain (and its out of date now I believe) the right/governmental bias of the supposedly “free press” in the US by examining in part its process of corruption of journalists, so I would like to understand how the faux-left gets built up; how our people become corrupted and compromised.

  I would expect that Brown and Hampshire have the best of intentions but they do appear to be deceiving their audience at this point.

  Banning lambert is a real bad sign.