Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
I don't like him.
He's a commie
Little Green Footballs has an interesting post up today that indicates a number of people signed a petition called for a 9/11 investigation, that never mentioned the basic "truther" stances, i.e., that the U.S. or Bush was behind 9/11 and sums up accurately, "truthers lie." More at Politico on that as well.
Jones's spin that he didn't know what he was endorsing when he signed that Truther petition is laughable and pathetic. He was a veteran left-wing activist in the Bay Area, not some naive college kid, and he certainly understood the views of the rest of the people and organizations pushing the petition.Epic fail.
LGF has been debunked all over the web. Notably by Jones himself, who has followed the truther line in other waysJust one example, years before he signed the petition he claims he didn't understand and that LGF claims is totally bogus, Van Jones MARCHED in person, in a truther march.There's no getting around it. http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/van-jones-linked-to-9-11-truther.htmlNot sure I care. This guy has been effectively marginalized because he took on free speech. He can't be very bright, being a communist after the full horror of communism is now known. He's just a guy who gets his fame from being extreme. A fellow traveler with Reverend Wright.Obama's little circle of nuts was the main reason I voted for Mccain, even though Mccain would have moved the GOP to the left. Obama just doesn't have any normal friends.BUT, LGF has forever tarnished the legacy they (Charles) built. They might be right sometimes, but they are just making it up, free of evidence, this time.
Another community organizer with an Ivy law degree.Why not put someone with some business experience in charge of helping create jobs, green or otherwise.
Maguro, the argument isn't that he misunderstood the point of what he was signing - it's that the petition was later changed or misrepresented.That may be the case, and some people might have signed a misleading petition. But there certainly could be more to Jones, and he may well have been very aware of what he was signing. What I find persuasive is that statement that "truthers lie." Fringe movements do lie to make themselves seem more credible. But that general truth doesn't speak to the specific example of Van Jones.
I am sorry, I need to correct an error in my comment above. Jones didn't march in San Fransisco to claim 9/11 was an inside job. He organized the march, and then marched.The idea that this person didn't understand what was on that petition is fucking hilarious. Jones is a huge fan of conspiracy theories, and this attention on him only brings up hundreds of other kooky tales. That he's still in the white house is just sad. http://landoftheczars.ytmnd.com/
Maguro, the argument isn't that he misunderstood the point of what he was signing - it's that the petition was later changed or misrepresented.And this is exactly why I refuse to sign any petitions. If I have a beef that strong I'll write my own letter.
Meet our new Environmental Overlords. What could be more collective than the Global Power of Liscensing Air Usages. The overwhelming Crisis of CO2 poisoning as determined by Secretly Agreed Science must be obeyed. Just ask the school kids what Dear Leader told them.
Beth, a lot of very powerful people singed that petition. Have you read the list of names? Many millionaires from Hollywood in particular are on that petition.If, in fact, the truthers were lying about what the petition said, then they would have been sued. Years later, no one noticed? That's ridiculous... if I put ten seconds of a famous song on youtube, some lawyer will have it pulled.And I don't know of any examples of truthers pretending they thought 9/11 wasn't an inside job, just to attract supporters. That seems counterproductive. They had plenty of people who believed in the LIHOP MIHOP stuff... like a third of democrats beleive that. They didn't need to lie, and it's very illogical and does jive with what we see on the petition (savvy people who can avoid and fight that kind of problem).
Jones is an interesting case. I read him as a smart guy on the make, same as I read Obama. Jones rode his race hustling radical schtick to a pretty good gig. Obama ran a more main stream con, but radical nonetheless.Obama et al are a lot of things, but stupid isn't one. There don't appear to be a lot of geniuses on the team, but they've certainly got lots of sharp operators. Why take on the baggage of a Jones? They had to know that his bull shit would surface. And Jones, after all, is really not that good, on paper anyway. Cronyy payback? Punching up the One's radical street cred? Utter arrogance? Inexperience? Naivete?Probably some combination, I guess, but Obama's got a pretty clear track record of hanging with radical scum, race baiters, and hustlers of every stripe. Maybe he likes scum? Or maybe he's got skeletons. Ain't sayin'.
Beth - I'm not responding to Charles Johnson's spin, which isn't worth bothering with, but rather Jones's own defense of his actions:An administration source said Jones says he did not carefully review the language in the petition before agreeing to add his name.Note that he's not accusing the petition organizers of not being up front about the contents or changing it after the fact, he's just saying he didn't read the darn thing carefully enough!You may find that convincing, I do not.Jake Tapper on Jones story
Pool:Jones joins Rev. Wright et al under the bus at?Firday, 9/04/2009, 4:59 EST.
"I guess, but Obama's got a pretty clear track record of hanging with radical scum, race baiters, and hustlers of every stripe. "Is it still slummin' if you're from there?
Red meat. Yummy! Us Althouse Hillbillies must be fed regularly cause it takes a bunch of energy to hate commies, America haters, socialists and most especially unhappy, ungrateful jerks [like Van Jones] who have been blessed with an education from an Ivy League school.WTF do they teach their students anyhow?
"Us Althouse Hillbillies must be fed regularly cause it takes a bunch of energy to hate commies, America haters, socialists and most especially unhappy, ungrateful jerks [like Van Jones] who have been blessed with an education from an Ivy League school."It's not Ann that's tossing it out, it's the Obama Administration. Those fools just keep it coming.
"BUT, LGF has forever tarnished the legacy they (Charles) built."I stopped visiting LGF around the same time I stopped visiting Andy Sullivan's site.
Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."East Bay Express profile of Van Jones, 11/2/05 [h/t MinuteMan]
I say 4:50.
Paul:I am sure he was misquoted again.
Any of you know who Mumia, that cop killer, is? Perhaps Jones doesn't know, since he also supports that guy. I'm sure it's all a big misunderstanding that Jones keeps hating normal things and loving awful things.Poor fella.
Sorry for my illiteracy at 1:25.That should be:Friday, Sept. 4, 2009, 4:59 PM EST.
The guy is toxic. One wonders if President Obama's staff, or the President himself, knew about all of this stuff before giving him the appointment.Regardless, his racially-motivated (obvious from his own words and writing) agenda claiming that "green" jobs are going to bring more jobs to the poor minority communities is spurious at best. In fact, if our economy were to whole-hoggedly go "green", most of the initial, read as first decade, jobs would go to educated professionals.I'm no fan of Glenn Beck's and view him somewhat of an alarmist. That's saying a lot, coming from me (according to my blushing bride anyway). The claims that Beck is attacking Van Jones only because Beck is under attack from Van Jones' supposed peeps doesn't have anything to do with the validity of those claims.If I were under attack, I would want to know everything I could about the opposition as well. If I happened to find evidence that would allow me to strike back, I would use it.
Someone finally paying a political price for 9/11 conspiracy theory. Good.
the LIHOP MIHOP stuff...And suddenly I'm hungry for pancakes.
How long until the wingnut fever swamps make today's administration move toward UNPRECEDENTED TRANSPARENCY into some kind of Moslem Kommunist Konspiracy?I give it 4 more hours.
Cronyy payback? Punching up the One's radical street cred? Utter arrogance? Inexperience? Naivete?I think you ruled out "stupid" too quickly.
Beth, I'm not trying to be too hard on you, and I'm glad you're presenting an argument for Jones because this is a stale thread without that.But your argument, that the petition was changed, is based on nothing. LGF made that up out of whole cloth. If that were the case, Obama and Jones would know it. It's not hard to see if something like that was changed. I used google cache and I don't think it ever was, but Jones would know for sure because he spoke to these people on the phone, and no doubt was on their email list (and even mailed this petition he signed). There's no way the petition was changed, because Jones and many others on the list would have cried foul by now. How many Obama supporters on this list would love to help Obama by giving Jones cover? Anyway, LGF's defense is disgusting. LGF built up a ton of credibility over the years with EVIDENCE they found. This is different. I don't know what caused the sea change, but it's very strange.
Has the White House hired a concierge to coordinate the regular and upcoming "under the bus" events?
I hope that conservatives' sensitivity toward Van Jones will lead to calls for every elected rep that ever espoused the birth certificate conspiracy to resign immediately. Should account for about a dozen Republicans. Oh, and they can never serve in government again.
Enough about Van Jones, lets talk about Mark Lloyd, Obama's "Chief Diversity Officer" to at the FCC: Here’s what that officer, Mark Lloyd has had to say to about the Venezuelan thug who has shut down an opposition television station:In Venezuela, with Chavez, you really had an incredible revolution — democratic revolution — to begin to put in place things that were going to have impact on the people of Venezuela. The property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled — worked, frankly, with folks here in the US government — worked to oust him. He came back and had another revolution, and Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in his country.So,the Chief Diversity Office of the Federal Communications Commission in the United States defines closing down television stations and censoring opposition media as “taking the media very seriously”?If the media in our country took their jobs seriously, they’d cover this appointment in greater depth. Don’t they find it in the least bit troubling that a guy who praises a man who shuts down media outlets now serves in the American government office regulating communication?I'm sure Joe Klein will weigh in on this any minute.
awesome! t-man with the daily Glenn Beck talking points! have at it, chumps!
In honor of Obama, I recently re-read the Gary Aldrich's "Unlimited Access" about his time in the Clinton WH (as an FBI Agent) - frankly, I think Aldrich is a bit of a pole-up-the-bum prig, but he has some great stories to recount.Anyhoo, one thing which I had forgotten and found useful to re-read is that while the FBI does background checks on anyone who works "in" the WH - which would include all the these Czars, etc - they don't actually have the power to exclude anyone. The FBI shares its findings with the WH Counsel, the President's security director (political appointment) and the Secret Service. The Secret Service can object to an appointment if the appointee poses a real physical danger to the President, but that's it. It is the political WH Counsel's office that decides on the "fitness" of a candidate of offices within the Admin. If they President wants commie, conspiracy mongering, race-baiting dope smokers, he can have them, as long as it is not for a position requiring Congressional approval - which is why Obama loves his Czars and other special advisers so much.
MM:But is any of it true? He that doth protest too much etc. The MSM won't report this stuff cause they hope the Dems and Obama will bailout their red-ink failing newspapers. The MSM believes they will be safe as part of the protected class. Won't they be surprised?
And this is exactly why I refuse to sign any petitions. If I have a beef that strong I'll write my own letter.I always sign the yearly “make St. Patrick’s Day a national holiday” petition put out by Guinness.
Mont-whatever,Do you ever attempt to address, dispute, refute, or question the evidence asserted in a thread?Axelturfing is hard work, I suppose, but couldn't you make better dough at Mickey D's?
"One wonders if President Obama's staff, or the President himself, knew about all of this stuff before giving him the appointment."Only if one is:Foolish.Gullible.Naive.Or all of the above. Of course Obama knows everything about these people and their beliefs. He is one of them. He was born and raised an America hating Marxist and only ever appeared to be "reasonable" and "moderate" in order to get his twisted hands on the levers of power. I'm still incredulous at the number of otherwise intelligent people who fell for this blatantly obvious phony. Methinks maybe they ain't so intelligent after all.
Hoosier is full of it. He'd sign anything you put in front of him as long as it was accompanied by a large beer and good food.
Montagne Montaigne,Do you really think claiming Bush and the military murdered thousands of americans is equivalent to saying it's weird that Obama hides his personal documents and we should get to see them?Obama was almost certainly born in Hawaii. It would be hilarious and awful if he were not, but I know the democrats are not that stupid to try to hide that. Doesn't change the fact that Obama noted he had his original birth certificate in his memoirs, and I want to see it only because it's clear Obama doesn't want me to see it. I want to know what Obama was up to at Columbia, too. I want to know the name of his cocaine dealer, and what his GPA was. In short, I think I have an excuse to violate his privacy. that's not kooky or strange at all. And the equivocation between this and 9/11 conspiracy theories is disgusting. It's like equating the GOP with the Nazis. It just makes you look unserious.
@holdfast, what you found in Unlimited Access doesn't seem to jibe with Jeff Lord's recollection of working in the White House, written here.At any rate, Van Jones has a police record, thinks Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent and George W. Bush is guilty of 9/11. I'm thinking his elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor. Makes him ideal to work in the Obama White House.
He's a liar.Old fashioned black and white liar. So reassuring that we have those guys running the show (unvetted) in DC these days.Beth the petition was later changed or mirepresentedBeth, you are sincere, somewhat misguided, but altogether still very naive. Do your homework. (Not to mention there is something CFL about these educated folks who don't read what they sign -- maybe that's why they're so dumbfounded that the citizens want them to read bills before they vote on them?)And you know those Bible verse "worsts" and "bests" discussed the other day? One of the best I forgot to list was: "The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked." That's a non-partisan verse. And it is true.ingsangiz - fabulous word
Last night on Fox they were saying that they thought Obama would dump Van Jones by Monday of this coming week.There is another whole story called "Obama's Green Albatross" that goes further into the charges that Van Jones is something of a self-avowed Maoist.A lot of people coming out of our toxic graduate schools think just like this fellow. When they hit the mainstream, they are going to get spit out, and it will cost them, I think, as it's going to cost Obama to keep putting them into his administration. But from where Obama sits -- these guys pretty much reflect his own thinking.He just isn't aware that most of the country still thinks like Locke rather than Marx. I hope that Obama will vouch for Van Jones and stick by him. He probably has hundreds of people in his administration who think like Van Jones, or are even more paranoid. It's been quite plain to me from day-one.As it becomes more and more clear, his approval ratings will begin to look more like approval ratings of the Communist Party of America. Well below 1%.
Interesting note at NRO:Byron York provides the necessary reminder: From a Nexis search a few moments ago:Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?"Kinda scary, no?
Van Jones, trial balloon, R.I.P.
@JALOld fashioned blackSorry...that's as far as I got on your comment before the tiny, vestigial residue of liberal white guilt cut off the oxygen to my brain and knocked me out for a good ten minutes.What were you saying again? And please...try to keep race out of it. To make such off-the-cuff comments without due sensitivity to skin pigmentation, without giving us your best-researched quips, is just niggardly of you.
I'm no fan of the truthers, and not all that intrested in defending Jones from those attacks, but just as a counterpoint to some of these comments, it's not all that hard to see why dude might've gotten hired.I mean look at all these shiny awards he won.Now that's not a defense of anything the man has done in the past, but maybe he got the job because he might actually be good at it? Granted I haven't seen any proof of that yet...
Commies, commies, commies.Can you rednecks take a time machine to 1950 and stay there?In all your McCarthyite spewings, did anyone stop to discuss the merits of working to transform the energy economy in a way that would revive american manufacturing and create jobs? No? Too complicated?REPUBLICANS LOST THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. You still have 3.5 years to get used to it.
I really appreciate that Jones's doesn't let white liberals off the hook, given that he recently stated that it was both white polluters and white environmentalists who are deliberatlely poisoning minority communities. At least his racism is politically even-handed. But seriously, doesn't this line up with "Rev." Wrights sermon, quoted by Obama" that "White folks greed runs a world in need." How many dots do you have to ignore to not see that this is what Obama truly believes?
@MontagneI personally abhor the thought of the US becoming a communist state and, I assure you, my neck is far from red. Light pink at best and that's wholly due to my Highlander ancestry.I suppose a better use of this space is to ask if you defend communism as a form of government and whether or not you think it's okey-dokey for someone so close to the highest levels of our government to advocate it?Just curious...
He's a watermelon; green on the outside, red on the inside.
Montagne;Sure we agree America needs more jobs. Heck a few new industries would be welcome too.But try to be intellectually honest. Even if I ignore Jones's transgressions, I can't find any evidence or experience on his resume that shows he can create private sector jobs. To me, it looks like he is very good at creating non-profit organizations which have been funded 100% by the govt!wv-thergovan [i swear}
Burn the witches, Scotty. Exploring radical politics in college doesn't taint you for life. But if you wanna keep busy trying to fan the flames of "scandal" to convince the 30% of American wingnuts that they hate people that they already hate, be my guest. The rest of us productive members of society will be trying to accomplish things in the meantime.
In all your McCarthyite spewings, did anyone stop to discuss the merits of working to transform the energy economy in a way that would revive american manufacturing and create jobs? No? Too complicated?No, not complicated at all. Commies have a uniformly horrific record on the economy, therefore we shouldn't have one working to "transform the energy economy". It would be the worst thing we could to to our energy industry.Next?
Productive? LOLYou mean like blogging on this site? Double LOL.You didn't answer my question. To counter your non-answer, though, exploring something is not the same as advocating for it to point of attempting to start a movement.Still...you didn't answer my question.
Mommie, mommie, mommie--Those mean old Rethuglicans don't believe in unicorn farts or time machines or anything special, and nice--like fairy dust.I do believe in Tink, I do believe in Tink, I do I do I do I do, I do believe in Tink.Montagne Montaigne--translated from the original gibberish
Montagne,Please explain why green energy would revitalize American Manufacturing. Wind turbines, etc., can and are manufactured elsewhere. It is not 1950.
Hey old dad: Shove it. Up. Your. Ass.
@MontagneHey old dad: Shove it. Up. Your. Ass....how very productive of you.
Man, Van Jones was awesome in the "Love Bug"...
Well, the guy was a communist, right?In the 1930's a lot of thoughtful and idealistic people became communists. There was a Depression. Capitalism and American politics did not seem to have the answers.In the 1940's and 1950's many of these people carried on with these beliefs, not noticing that times were changing. Others--a minority--became communists because they wanted to undermine the United States in some way. A few did it for the money.People who became communists then may have been idealistic, or clueless or even subversive. But it was comprehensible given the times.Nowadays given the decline of communism into totalitarianism, and its moral and political collapse, becoming a communist is simply pathetic, strange and stupid.I don't give a damn that the guy was or is a communist. I do care that someone in charge of jobs has such contempt for the marketplace economy. And that he is a liar.
@DavidThe last couple of self-identified communists that I had a debate with insisted that small business expansion does not create jobs, wealth, or prosperity.After realizing that they believed this despite obvious examples to the contrary in their own lives, I gave up and changed the topic to WWII, which we apparently started on behalf of the Ford Motor Company.
Mommie, Mommie, Mommie,I just told a mean old Rethuglican to shove something up his poo poo place.Aren't I special? What's a poo poo place?Montagne Montaigne--translated from the original tedious axeltruf
David said:"I don't give a damn that the guy was or is a communist. I do care that someone in charge of jobs has such contempt for the marketplace economy. And that he is a liar."Best comment of the day!wv = subtly
How long until the wingnut fever swamps make today's administration move toward UNPRECEDENTED TRANSPARENCY into some kind of Moslem Kommunist Konspiracy?So, they are going to release the names of white house tourists to the public? Am I missing something impressive there?
"REPUBLICANS LOST THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. You still have 3.5 years to get used to it."The best Trojan Horse of all time and the Trojans built it themselves. 3.5 years may not be long enough. I almost don't want it to end.
The perpetual Racism Charge Machine:Minorities are persecuted = racist.Member of a minority blames white person for anything = racist. White person points out that that's racist = racist.(repeat from top)
Mmm, quick poll. which is worse... being a commie or a truther?
An administration source said Jones says he did not carefully review the language in the petition before agreeing to add his name.Take note ladies and gentlement that any of us who did not carefully review say, our tax returns you'd have the Federal government so far up your ass Titus would be jealous.Except of course your're the Chair of the Ways and Means committee....or Treasury Secretary. Then it's just a minor oversight.Hows this hopenchange working for everyone? We all gettin tingly thighs yet?Ya betcha
Shanna: short answer: yes.
MoMo -- the AxelturferRead the "Transparency" articles, wrote a response, and blogger ate it.Upshot:The man who is president claims to have the most transparent administration ever. He has decided to open the WH visitors log. But hey -- the visitors of the first 8 MONTHS of his presidency aren't going to be revealed. Because -- well, his is the most transparent administration ever. Small (tiney) footnote here -- "The White House called the release of information 'voluntary,' continuing to argue the Bush administration's position that full disclosure is not required by the Freedom of Information Act." Heh.Of course some names will not be released, including visitors for his daughters, Malia and Sasha. That's cool. (But it's okay for the AP to print the picture of a dying Marine -- one of his -- the US Commander-in-chief's -- Marines, even though the Marine's father asked them not to. He might want to address that.)Citizens should know how business is conducted in the White House, Obama says. (But since he honest-to-God did not know that would mean people would want to know who was coming and going, in the beginning he probably let some people come and go who would not look too good ... see? You got your Konspiracy.) Now that he's figured out how it works, he's figured out how to do some business OUT of the White House. Whew. That takes care of that problem.According to USA Today: "Obama pledged during his campaign to run the most transparent administration in history. He expanded access to presidential records and told agencies to more freely disclose information upon request. He pledged to detail how hundreds of billions of dollars in economic stimulus money is being spent." (Well, we all know how the latter is working out ...)This from the man who will not release his original birth certificate, who will not release records of his college, university or law school records: loan, scholarhip, or transcripts. He will not release his medical records ....Anyway, interesting segue -- well, thread jacking -- off the topic which is Van Jones does not belong, and never did belong in the White House as an advisor.(How's Obama doing for allowing the citizens to have full knowledge of all his "czars" far left over the horizon ideologies and whacko beliefs?)
Mmm, quick poll. which is worse... being a commie or a truther?Trick question. The real answer is that birthers and anti-healthcare reformers are tied for the worst, since they're evil-mongers or something.Commies and truthers are just lovably eccentric.
Oh I and a bit OT but I wanted to share with the rest of the class why teabaggers are out in force. It's because of arrogant assholes like Barron Hill. Please note the part where he repeats himself and tells the audience that you're not going to tell me how to run my Congressional office.So this is why people are outraged. They aren't even putting up pretenses that they WORK. FOR. US. Now they're just saying fuck you.I never thought I would ever say thank God I'm I have Dan Burton.Sorry for the digression Professor. I'm going drinking now.
Montagne, do you really think Van Jones will not be gone from the administration one week from today?
Scott Min spades(sigh)Sorry. I can't even find that comment now.
Obama people,I sorry about all this stuff lately, It's really sad.Consider it a long teachable moment.
@bagoh20Consider it a long teachable moment.Yes, and as an Obamanite said above, they still have 3.5 years to get used to it.Bush did horrible damage to conservatives for a host of reasons, but that was over eight long years. I believe President Obama doing the same thing to his side, but at a much more brisk pace.Brisk is just a cool word...in any sentence.
Big Mike said... @holdfast, what you found in Unlimited Access doesn't seem to jibe with Jeff Lord's recollection of working in the White House, written here.I did read the Lord piece, which was two administrations prior to Clinton. Aldrich's recollections about about people invited by the President-elect (actually mostly the first lady) to serve in the White House - not visitors. He does point out, repeatedly, that under GHWB if the FBI background check had any serious black mark, then the WH Counsel would automatically reject that person based on the FBI report - but it was up to the counsel. Under Clinton, the standards were a little different.
I'm pretty sure that before Jones was green he led a group that taped policemen to try to undermine the SF police department. Being green doesn't mean a thing. It just works out better.
I'm pretty sure that before being green, Van Jones led a group that tried to catch police on tape so they could undermine the SF police force. Being green doesn't mean a thing.
Where is the free speech for Van Jones? The President should just switch Van over to the 9/11 ongoing investigations to hang Dick Cheney. Czars are Czars wherever the pretend they are working on stuff.
Was Van Jones vetted and this somehow slipped through the cracks (that he was a hard core communist who hates capitalism, demagogic racist accusing whitey of polluting minority neighborhoods,and truther accusing Bush of being an accomplice to the worst attack on our soil in our history)? Or is Obama so comfortorable with radical ideas that they didn't even register as reasons for disqualification? Just as Ayers personally bombing federal buildings was not reason to disqualify associating with him. Just as Rev. Wrights two decades long harangues of black liberation theology and AmeriKKKa rhetoric were not reasons to leave the church?Or was Van Jones chosen BECUASE Obama believes the same things that Van believes?Other than Van's radicalism and Alinksyite communist manifesto style environmentalism I don't see that much qualifications for a post as an environmental czar. So that leads me to conclude that Obama appointed Van because of his message and not in spite of it.And he was simply assuming that the media, like they did with his own associations with all of his radical buddies, would simply sweep Van's true agenda under the rug or simply not report anything about it. And of course, as Byron York points out, that is exactly what happened when it came to the usual sources lack of reporting.
Black racism been bery bery good to Van.
"Burn the witches, Scotty. Exploring radical politics in college doesn't taint you for life."Thanks for the regurgitated talking point.The problem is that nobody's talking about things that Van Jones did in college. His well-documented involvement in the founding of a Maoist organization took place after he graduated from college. So did his involvement with the truther movement (both signing a petition alongside other high profile crackpots and organizing a truther march). So did his involvement with the loony-tunes "Free Mumia" movement.Jones isn't simply a guy who happened to have explored radical politics. He isn't even simply a radical. I could handle either of those. No, Van Jones has consistently identified and voluntarily associated himself with nutjobs -- American Maoists, the Free Mumia cult, and truthers.
I'm glad you're presenting an argument for Jones because this is a stale thread without that.Joe, I'm not presenting an argument for Jones - why do you say that? I pointed to two posts following some questions coming out because of the Jones story - both on Politico and on LGF - and added that the questions in general say nothing specifically about Jones. Don't turn me into a defender of Jones in your desire to have a sounding board. I started reading LGF when I realized the blogger was quite even-handed, despite the insanity of the comments threads. I'm guessing some of those here saying they quit reading him noticed the same thing, but it meant something entirely different to them.I like LGF because it's not immersed in dogma.
Oh my! So the birthers aren't conspiracy nuts, right along with the 9/11 crowd. Now I know not to bother taking you seriously, Slow Joe. Never mind.
And when is Obama going to round us up for our secretly-poisoned Swine Flu shots? And did you hear, if you get the swine flu, Obama's going to put you in a camp surrounded by armed guards? But only if you're a registered Republican, or known to post comments on sites quite reasonably wanting to know why our White House has been taken over by some commie born in Kenya. So a few of us will probably escape that fate.
There are very few excuses for why this man got this position and none of them are acceptable except "I won." There are plenty of people to blame that on.
Oh my! So the birthers aren't conspiracy nuts, right along with the 9/11 crowd.Comparing birthers to truthers is like comparing the JFK "there was a second gunman" crowd to the people who think the moon landings were faked. All of the above are nutty, but the latter are clearly nuttier than the former.Personally I think the hubbub over his Truther status is beside the point. The guy became an avowed Communist, as an adult, in the *90s*. That alone proves he's either crazy or deeply stupid. Believing the 9/11 attacks were the result of a US government conspiracy isn't nearly as ignorant and insane as believing, after the fall of the Soviet Union, that Communism was a viable political philosophy.
Beth, you are sincere, somewhat misguided, but altogether still very naive.JAL, you are sincere, and somewhat dishonest. You didn't quote me accurately. I said the argument - the one I cited from LGF, not mine - is that the petition was later changed. I said then that that "may have" happened but that it still says nothing about Jones specifically. I am dubious about that claim, and that's clear from my post. You have misrepresented what I said. I suppose that's one way to make your point - a shitty way, but that's your choice.
Oh my! So the birthers aren't conspiracy nuts, right along with the 9/11 crowd."I'm neither, but the birthers are positively disproven by only people's word(which I accept). The 9/11 truthers are positively disproven by science, common sense and our own lying eyes. One is crazier than the other by many degrees. Clearly Van Jones would be a birther too if Obama was white and conservative with the same other facts in evidence.
Revenant, I tend to believe one type of deluded just slides right into other delusions, but your hierarchy is certainly valid. And I so enjoyed watching a Youtube clip recently, of the incident where Buzz Aldrin popped a harassing moon-landing skeptic right in the jaw.
"And when is Obama going to round us up for our secretly-poisoned Swine Flu shots? "Shucks he's too busy trying to stop whitey from spraying poison on immigrant farm workers. C'mon!! Haven't you been following your man Van's talking points?Oh yeah he's your man, just like every other America hating Marxist nutbag in this positively criminally insane administration, including and especially the Marxist nutbag in chief, who you voted for. You fucking stupid Democrats nominated and elected this monstrosity, with the help of a bunch of delusional "independents" and rinos so you are responsible for every bit of damage that rains down on the American people from bastards.
The best parallel for the "birther" crowd would be the people who insisted, in early 2001 (and in some cases right up through 2009) that Bush wasn't the legal President of the United States because of blah blah blah etc.Some people can't accept that their guy lost, that's all.
I said the argument - the one I cited from LGF, not mineBeth, your insinuation that you introduced and repeated (and repeated, and repeated) that particular argument in this thread but that you don't believe it yourself is as transparently dishonest as Van Jones's claim that he signed the Truthers' petition, wrote articles for them, helped organize marches for them, etc., but didn't really understand what they stood for.
And I so enjoyed watching a Youtube clip recently, of the incident where Buzz Aldrin popped a harassing moon-landing skeptic right in the jaw.Well, if you're a Youtube fan you'll find lots of good Van Jones clips over...highly recommended.No matter how hard Charles Johnson spins, Van Jones is a complete loon. Look for yourself if you don't believe me.This one is my fave.
Take note ladies and gentlement that any of us who did not carefully review say, our tax returns you'd have the Federal government so far up your ass Titus would be jealous.I'm planning to use the old Steve Martin defense. It's working for Charlie Rangel.
Johnson isn't spinning anything - he's pointed out several reasons to distrust Van Jones. He's not making a case for Jones, nor have I.
"In all your McCarthyite spewings, did anyone stop to discuss the merits of working to transform the energy economy in a way that would revive american manufacturing and create jobs? No? Too complicated?"Not too complicated. Too retarded.But I'm in sort of a "mood" today. I bought a couple gold fish from Petco last week which imported ick into my tank and infected the resident goldfish, a very large, several years old black moor. So I went back to get some medicine and was told that they don't *carry* Maracid any more because they've gone "blue." It's like going "green" but for fish! Yay! So now they only carry more gentle homeopathic remedies. So I asked what happens when my fish that caught ick from a fish I bought at that store all die because they won't sell me the medicine for them.Really, who are they to decide for *me* to go "blue" and not sell the product I need?I'll try the stuff they *will* sell me but if it doesn't clear up the ick *fast* I'm picking up Maracid at a different shop on Tuesday, hoping Pitch Black and its two little calico fantail buddies, Rasputin and Zombie, are still alive.In any case, the idea that making decisions on a "green" basis and not an economic one will transform or revive industry is a bit like selling ick infected fish because of a corporate policy to go "blue."
At least we are moving past the Clinton, "...but I never inhaled" phase of politics...sort of.Come on, folks. Who among us hasn't been on the "wrong" side of something. It's how we learn, for cripe's sake.The expectation that those who serve are without "sin", or without lapses in judgement, are OVER, and if not, we are in for an ever decreasing list of people willing to serve on our behalf.
Can you rednecks take a time machine to 1950 and stay there?We don't have to travel to the 1950s to find Communists. We could travel to the 90s and talk to Van Jones.Being a Communist in the 50s was somewhat forgivable. The Soviet genocides weren't widely known and the Chinese and Cambodian genocides were years in the future, as were the mass murders and purges of the Castro, Kim and Ho Chi Minh regimes. Being a Communist in the 50s showed a certain amount of ignorance and naivety, but people can grow out of that.But to be a Communist in the 1990s, when it was already universally known that they had murdered a hundred million? When hundreds of millions more around the world were throwing off the shackles of Communism and celebrating their freedom? Like I said earlier, that requires that you be either crazy or really, really dumb.did anyone stop to discuss the merits of working to transform the energy economy in a way that would revive american manufacturing and create jobs?Sounds like a good idea to me. But wouldn't it be a smart idea to make sure that the guy directing the effort *hadn't* already proven himself to be a complete fuckin' moron? Just a thought.
Penny,Van Jones gave a speech in March 2009 talking about whites deliberately poisoning minorities in America. What, in your mind, would disqualify someone from office in the first post-racial administration? This isn't about forgiving a past sin or youthful error, it's about a crackpot overseeing $30 billion in government spending on "green" jobs.
Has there ever been in this country or anywhere in the world a recorded instance where a black leader was repudiated by his black constituency because he was too hostile to white people? I know that black people have many historical reasons to distrust white people; but, for all that, hatred of whites does not increase the comfort and ease of their lives. Black people are stuck with us. The burden of life will be lighter if it is not freighted with all the resentments of the past.
Beth, I was polite to you and you were rude to me. Not sure why.You presented a defense of Jones... whether you like it or not what you said in your initial post was the best defense of Jones presented. I repeatedly explained why I had a problem with that defense, without insulting you personally and actually taking a second to let you know I didn't intend the repeated comments to be rude... just that you were the only Jones defense I thought worth discussing.Your ridiculous reaction to that is your problem. That you don't 'take me seriously' is not my problem at all. That you call me a 'birther' just shows you are either dishonest or did not read my comments. I'm not... I just don't think there's any rationale behind comparing birthers to truthers. The former is based on paranoia and the latter is based on hatred of a country. I'm not either... but I can see the difference.I don't have enough time to frequent Althouse's comment sections and don't know who the normal people are. My mistake.
Thanks AC245 for the comment about Beth's "doubting" (?) comments.It's one thing to be open to different possibilities, but communicating clearly in that case is preferable to ambiguity.Let's face it, we are all speed reading here..."that may be the case."Topic change:If Jones is in charge of creating "green" jobs and he is a communist, (and a truther, liar, cop-killer supporter, whitey's poisoning minorites type guy) that does not bode well for the private sector, now, does it? Maybe it's a run-in to the Red Green Show?
Beth just says 'hey, I just thought it was kinda neat to throw out there! I have no idea why everyone interpreted my comment to mean I actually supported LGF's bullshit! I was just throwing it out there!' Kinda like the truthers are just 'asking interesting questions'. They aren't treasonous propagandists, they are just... throwing it out there.Beth thinks someone out there is stupid enough to think she wasn't trying to cast a shadow of doubt on the excellent case against Jones. It's OK Beth... you defended him and we explained what was wrong with your defense. It's not like your defense was outrageous. It was tepid, as it should have been. When you twirl around the truth about what you obviously meant to do, which was give Jones a defense, you look like you take this internet thing way too seriously. No one cares that you defended Jones... in fact, I told you that I appreciated it before you started insulting me for no apparent reason.
"What, in your mind, would disqualify someone from office in the first post-racial administration?Frankly, "t", I am more interested in the process right now. We have a President who likes appointed "czars". MANY czars, and all beholding only to him. and to him alone.Instead of looking at that FACT, we get side-tracked by Van Jones' "worthiness", and hey! Maybe we can make enough noise to get this sucker replaced. Replaced with another CZAR!We need to see what the bigger problem is here, and frankly, it is NOT Van Jones.
LGF isn't defending Jones. If you read the blog post on the Jones topic you'd know that, Slow Joe. Nor have I defended Jones.LGF regularly takes birthers to task; I suspect that is behind some of the vitriol in this thread.
Beth, your accusation that people taking an issue with LGF are birthers is just stupid. I was responding to a specific comment that equivocated Jones being a truther with republican birthers who should 'be banned from public office [also]'. You already know that. You've already promised not to listen to me, so I'll bear in mind I'm just discussing your ideology with others.You brought up points that explain why Jones may not be a truther. Little Green Footballs has an interesting post up today that indicates a number of people signed a petition called for a 9/11 investigation, that never mentioned the basic "truther" stances, i.e., that the U.S. or Bush was behind 9/11 and sums up accurately, "truthers lie." More at Politico on that as well.Look at your language. "Accurate" "indicated" etc. You're actually exaggerating LGF's argument in your attempt to write an apologia for Jones, the proven truther.And make no mistake, Jones is a truther. Accept it. The witnesses LGF cites, Lerner and Zinn, have been proven to be truthers in spite of their ridiculous claim they were misled. I really feel no need to go into it, when you won't even admit you're still defending Jones. We'll just accept that you forfeit any case defending Jones from the obvious fact he's a truther and Obama likes to employ truthers.At the end of a very, very long defense of Jones, LGF claims it's not defending Jones. He says 'clearly', and even 'extremely clear' to prove that his lengthy defense of Jones was not a defense. I see where you got the idea.Here's a basic fact: it's been proven, thanks to Jones's repeated work organizing marches for truthers, writing on truther websites, etc, that he's a truther, but to LGF, it's just a 'claim' that is 'relentlessly' pursued by 'hate sites' like 'fox news'. LGF leaves out a lot of information, such as mentioning Jones in its Glenn Beck Boycott update, or pointing out Jones's organizing a march of truthers in 2002. Why? Well, because he's lying when he says he's not defending Jones.What's so striking is the change in seriousness LGF has suffered from. This site used to take on serious issues. It's got ten thousand words explaining to me why everyone condemning Jones is a hate site or lunatic, but LGF has zero discussion of Obama's policies. ZERO on the entire page as it sits right now. the only time Obama even comes up is to tell "the right wing blogosphere" to "get a grip" over the Obama speech to kids, which Obama already admitted he went to far on when he agreed to remove some offensive questions.It's a huge change from last year that Obama has no criticism and barely any discussion on LGF. Jones is Obama's czar, so LGF has to carry water for him. And insult those who have already proven their case as 'hate' and 'lunatic'. Because if you disagree with Obama, you're a racist, and yes, that is exactly what LGF is implying.It's LGF's relentlessly and childish ugly tone towards the right that is most interesting. It was very friendly with many of these blogs very recently, and now it can't mention any conservative without an insult.Kinda like you, Beth... the way you call me a 'birther' for no apparent reason, the hostility you show at being earnestly thanked for holding a position I wanted to argue against... where does that come from? Why is LGF so angry at the right?I think it's really interesting in today's world of paid astroturfers. The dems paid DailyKOS, so why wouldn't they pay LGF? Why would a POLITICS blog not discuss Obama's policies? All LGF seems to talk about is how much LGF hates people.
Obama's surrounded himself with quite an array of defectives. He's either stupid or he wants it that way. The fact that he keeps them on when they should be canned means that they'll be easy to control...no independent ideas, no standing on principles; just doing what their "benefactor" wants. All sins are forgiven a useful tool. He's setting himself up to be "Absolute Ruler" of the once greatest nation on earth. He needs useful tools who OWE him...Chicago style. Take Charlie Rangel, for example. No one deserves to face charges and harsh penalties for tax evasion more than that guy. But what does he and his tax committee do? They write a bill that will make penalties mandatory for anyone who makes an honest mistake on their taxes. It's but a short step from that to making them criminal penalties. Unless that's what Obama wanted, how could anyone in Rangel's position put forth such a bill? It's clear that it's what Obama wants...because Rangel is exonerated by the ethics committee and allowed to stay on. Gangsta government. If Jones stays, it's fact. It's too late to solve it with talk. vw = grierse: Gears grinding to go into reverse - What we're getting from Washington.
I imagine Obama picks the odd staff based on their left wing orientation, not anything else.Very often there's something disqualifying about them.
I agree with the hierarchy of truther worse than birther.But, I think we all know people and politics well enough to know that many of the birthers on the Right would likely leap to a truther status if, by some awful chance, a terrorist attack hits the US during Obama's watch. Beth is right about these being similar enough issues. Because, it's about the cause to be latched onto that wants to destroy an opponent. It's a malicious distrust that wants to believe the very worst about an opponent. And whoever has this attitude, on either side, belongs no where near a government post because this malicious distrust will be used again and again in defining policy and responding to issues. It's a clear sign of unfixable bias.
the hostility you show at being earnestly thanked for holding a position I wanted to argue against... where does that come from?Not hostility, but rejection - and it comes from simply not holding that position, and calling you out for making me your strawman.
the hostility you show at being earnestly thanked for holding a position I wanted to argue against... where does that come from?Not hostility, but rejection - and it comes from simply not holding that position, and calling you out for making me your strawman.From what I can tell about LGF, that blogger is a conservative who calls out the worst of right-wing rhetoric - the creationists, the birthers, the nationalists. Good for him. More liberal bloggers should do the same with left-wing rhetoric.
How do we know anything about Van Jones? (Byron York's lexis-nexis search was telling. Zero. Zero. Zero....)I don't want to muddy the waters here, because it's one of those ferocious topics and I do have mixed feelings about Beck.... That being said, didn't this all start to unravel when Glenn Beck started looking at who was writing the bills and setting policy and who the "czars" were? When he started to figure out (and ranting) that Van Jones was not a sterling choice to be in a powerful federal unvetted position? Isn't that when this "boycott" and pressure on Beck's advertisers started?So the fact that millions of people who do not limit their info sources to network news (sans Fox) and legacy media now know that Van Jones is unfit for employment (our money) in a hugely powerful office is because a right wing whacko media guy did everyone else's homework?Just wondering if I have connected the scattered dots out there. The fact is there are so many loose ends, so many questionable people -- not just crooks -- ideologically questionable people -- so many dots out there in this administration it is hard to keep up.wv = tricanot a fecta
Calling Charles Johnson a "conservative" is probably not very accurate and in any case beside the point.We don't need CJ to read the tea leaves on Jones for us when Jones has been so eloquent and loquacious in describing his own views.Listen to Van Jones, read his words and judge for yourself. Like Reverend Wright, he is who he is.If that's your cup of tea, fine, but let's not pretend he's some kind of milquetoast mainstream liberal who's being portrayed as a radical. He's about as radical as they come and has never denied it up til now.
Paddy O it's about the cause to be latched onto that wants to destroy an opponent.Talk about latching on to something -- I was just musing to my husband that Hillary seems more ideologicaly driven than Bill was. That administration had just old fashioned crooks.Whether it's about "latching on" or not, it seems the "maturing" (i.e. now they are old enough to be in positions of power) of the 60s and 70s protestors has taken a decidedly ideological turn.The old school Dem-Repub back and forth now has a different flavor. I would hope that the uniqueness of the American people finds its voice again and we can reject those things which would turn us into another European state.Rejecting the ideology of the Joneses and the Wrights and the Ayers is part of that. If that means rejecting Obama. So be it.If you look back at the comments on this blog in February and March there were many people who did not vote for him who were willing to wait and see.We have waited and seen.No thanks.
From what I can tell about LGF, that blogger is a conservative who calls out the worst of right-wing rhetoric - the creationists, the birthers, the nationalists. Good for him. More liberal bloggers should do the same with left-wing rhetoric.I think, rather than that, he's a democrat who was on board for the war on terror and thus was allied with those who stood by him on the Iraq war which were pretty much the evil neocons and Joe Lieberman. Now that the war on terror has turned into background noise he falls back on his usual targets (aka the evil conservatives). He, like Sullivan, is conservative in name only but much of his outrage is directed towards his true targets.And yes, more left wing sites should police some of their crazies.
On the question of what did Obama know about Jones and when did he know it, Valery Jarret, Obama's very close advisor of many years, is on video as stating that 'they' have been following Jones since his Oakland days.
Beth is right about these being similar enough issues. Because, it's about the cause to be latched onto that wants to destroy an opponent. It's a malicious distrust that wants to believe the very worst about an opponent.And whoever has this attitude, on either side, belongs no where near a government post because this malicious distrust will be used again and again in defining policy and responding to issues. It's a clear sign of unfixable bias.Well said.And yes, more left wing sites should police some of their crazies.Why not all of them?
Here's my own read on Charles Johnson - he was a liberal and an anti-Bushie before 9/11. 9/11 changed him and he went on the offense against enemies foreign - his links to and commentary on the dangers Islamism has been essential reading since 9/11. That said, Charles Johnson has been spending an inordinate amount of time over the course of the last couple of years focuing on the creationist threat as well as the threat from the nuttier parts of the Libertarian camp. I would suspect that there are a number of reasons why this is the case - he may feel guilt over his overwhelming support for the Iraq War or he may feel its his job to keep the country moderate. There are probably a number of other things that go into his thinking as well.Regardless, I do not need Charles Johnson to tell me whether Van Jones is one scary individual in what is shaping up to be a large group of scary people that Obama has surrounded himself with.
I hope Obama doesn't fire him. He should stay, as a reminder of who the President really is when he thinks nobody's looking.If he gets fired, not only is it hypocritical (since Obama has radical associations and beliefs, too, just more canniness about them), Jones and the like-minded will be able to add one more thing to the list of the Man keeping him down. The White Man, naturally.
Does Obama get a voucher from the media in the form of more free prime time programming for turning in his 'clunker' of a Van?
Post a Comment