Free Republic

Given your definition of "manipulated", I don't think there's anything in your original statement (in this particular discussion) to disagree with. If I recall correctly, you were contending that the Sites' video would be manipulated ("put forth as") to suggest that the entire exercise was wrong. That's probably true. Or, if I were to quibble, I would only say that the "reception" of that news would have that effect on many people. (You see, I don't think the public is manipulated so much by the news as the public is manipulating the news as it ingests it, so what is received is, as you put it before, distorted to fit preconceptions.

I take your point about posts not being picked up as intended. I think this is because most of us are far more used to talking than to writing. Even if we write as we talk, literally, the effect will not be the same as if we had actually spoken the message to another. There is an art in writing to give the effect of "sounding" just like one speaks, which cannot actually be how one speaks at all. The principle is akin to the principle of naturalism on television - to make something realistic appearing is not the same as literally being realistic. Take Hill Street Blues, for instance.

Anyway, I understood your point and I tried to imagine us as two acquaintances in an actual conversation and I could see that the same words that you used in that post, given other aspects of tone, body languages, etc., would most likely not have come across as lecturing.

I noticed, btw, in your other most recent post to milford, that you seem to refer to the media as if it's an entity with a single mind, such as a very large organization might be. I'd like to take you up on this (in as friendly a fashion as possible, lest you feel like you're getting a lecture :-)) if I may.

I don't think the media functions as a single entity with common purpose. To the extent that an editor or publisher might create parameters, any single given element of the media, may have some sense of a unified direction. And in that case, since most journalists tend toward liberal in the US context (I'll expound on that little qualification in a minute), one might expect most media outlets to lean liberally. However, in more recent decades, with corporate ownership of more and more media outlets, I would imagine this would have swung to the other side of the coin, as most corporate CEO's tend to lean toward a more conservative viewpoint. After all, no matter how "objective" any given journalist might attempt to be, he's inevitably going to be influenced by his or her own politics - BUT he or she will be even more influenced by the demands of the job and the paycheck. The percentage of journalists who would be willing to risk sacrificing themselves for their beliefs is probably about as high a percentage of any other grouping of people - which is not very high, to put it mildly.

I would argue that this myth of a liberal media, which may or may not have ever existed in the past, has been gone now for some decades.

The reason I specified "in the US context" above is that the American media has always been a right wing media if looked at from a global standpoint. Every country, like most individuals, believes itself to be the measuring stick by which moderation can be judged. Thus during China's cultural revolution, a large number of people were seen as "reactionaries" even though from the outside they were clearly communist - they were just less extreme communists than those who wielded power during that time. By the same token, an American liberal, is only seen as liberal as set against his fellow countrymen, but is not really a liberal at all from a broader perspective. As loosely as "commie" is used these days in referring to a certain category of American citizen, real communists/marxists always hated American liberals far more than they did American conservatives. And from that same perspective, the media is hardly liberal, so if it does indeed function with that common purpose as your words suggest, it would be a conservative purpose, albeit that it might be LESS conservative than some would like.

Yes, I know I've opened a real can of worms here. :-)

You still haven't answered my question about the use of the word "manipulated".

you show yourself to be someone willing to assume something you can't possibly know, but only want to believe.

Please, don't lecture me on "wanting to believe". First of all, is there any doubt in your mind what anybody here, including me, would believe, if any other country in the world treated American prisoners in exactly the same fashion by any other country and if as much documented evidence came to light about that country's policies regarding prisoners? Are you in any doubt that the North Vietnamese torture of prisoners was policy? Are you in any doubt that the Japanese treatment of prisoners in WWII was policy? Are you in any doubt that the Iraqi treatment of prisoners during Saddam's reign was policy? Did you have (prior to the war) documented evidence that those policies went right up to Saddam? Secondly, if you think I want to believe that our government sanctions torture, you're very sadly mistaken. I didn't want to believe, nor DID I believe that My Lai was anything but an aberration. Nor do I believe differently to this day. But you'd be right in assuming that I do not believe the refusal to honor Red Cross requests for standard wartime information is the act of a handful of low level individuals.

Ok, I said the top, specifically Rumsfeld and Gonzales. Well, since I'm not great on recollecting details and can't recall off the top of my head where to find the documented memos from Rumsfeld on that score, I'll drop that one. But Gonzales and his memos are a very different matter. It has nothing to do with anything I want to believe.

You ask about people who did not participate in abuses and whether they should be up on charges. Well, you tell me? What were the principles of Nuremberg?

Atmosphere and license is one very wide and amorphous concept.

There's no argument that atmosphere and license are very hard to quantify, but to argue that they aren't important or even that they aren't major factors in these things is to deny reality. Corporations know better about such things - the smart ones, the really big ones, spend huge amounts of money on experts in such vague and amorphous areas because they know that these things make huge differences in money - they may be hard to quantify, but money is not. And these factors, that you wish to dismiss so easily because they're more difficult to quantify, are hugely important in the behaviour of an organization collectively, regardless of what that organization is a business or an army.

Now, if you insist, I'll locate and post documented evidence on Gonzales' influence in these things. And if I do, I think we'll see then who is influenced by what they WANT to believe. Since Gonzales at the time had no actual direct decision making power, I guess we'll just have to ask ourselves if we want to believe that his bosses (such as the president of the United States) just ignored his advice or not and which was more likely, given the microscopic evidence.

Sometimes finding out what one's own government is doing is like gathering intelligence. You gather scattered bits of information and then you make guesses as to what the most likely conclusions are that one can make about the broader picture. If you want to call that "wanting to believe", go ahead.

But dare I suggest that on many other things, that many people will quite happily assume that where there is smoke, there must be fire?

How???? It was exposed, exposed again, became the subject of an infinite number of perspectiveless discussions by the media, and USED and EXPLOITED in such a way as to call into question EVERYTHING about the War, with the handful of American soldiers involved in the humiliating rituals being sold as symbolic and emblematic of the Military and indicative of the wrongheadedness of the whole enterprise.

I didn't say it wasn't used or exploited, nor would I disagree that it's being presented by some as "indicative of the wrongheadedness of the whole enterprise."

But you said it was manipulated and I'm asking you how it was manipulated.

I have to seriously differ from your reductionism in referring to this situation as something being done by "a handful of American soldiers". The atmosphere and license for these activities came right from the top. (If you consider Gonzales and Rumsfeld the "top", as the president's counsel and secretary of defense, respectively.)

And Abu Ghraib was also manipulated to cast a long black shadow on our entire enterprise.

How?

The "reality show" comparison is a good one, but sometimes it seems that incidents like the mosque shooting under consideration here get this overexposure and all this analysis by the talking heads as if our judgement and adjudication of this incident is what is going to determine whether the war itself is just.

While we most likely disagree on the judgement of the war as a whole, I absolutely agree with your statement. (Regardless of whether this incident's appraisal would be supportive of my own overall position or not.)

Yes, 'Connor' is normally spelled with two n's and some have, indeed, spelled Mr. Cruise O'Brien's name in that fashion. However, in his case, I do believe he does spell it with a single 'n'. A quick search on google for him will certainly settle this for you.

Well, personally I have no problem with Zionism. Especially considering the last 2,000 years. But then, I've always had a soft spot for things Jewish. I'm just saddened to see the Israelis squander the worldwide sympathy the holocaust brought them at such a terrible price.

As for your reaction to the PLO member who spoke at your school, I'm empathetic to your position. Arafat and his PLO in that time were terrorists and the murderers of innocents. I've never personally had much time for the Palestinian movements, although I've some sympathy for the suffering of the general population. I fault the Arabs more for Palestinian woes than I do the Israelis, but obviously it doesn't suit people in that region to view things in that light.

I've always been amazed by the American left's adoption of some Arab causes, considering that they represented, to my mind, beliefs that are utterly anathema to liberal thinking, while Israel on the other hand, not to mention American Jewry, have traditionally been far more representative of the dreams and aspirations of liberal thinking about civil rights and the protection of same. During the occupation of Lebanon, I've often pointed to the fact that fistfights broke out in the Knesset, which to me is a sign of real opposition politics, unlike our own houses of congress which have so often rubber stamped American foreign policies.

At the same time, while you point out your justifiable disgust at the PLO, the absence of comments about the murderous history of Ariel Sharon is striking. His disgrace in Israel was total and his return to political favour is quite phenomenal, imo.

On supporting a war which protects us from insane maniacs, who could disagree with that? The point upon which we would not agree, I've no doubt, is whether the current war is doing that. My contention would be just the opposite. The comment I neglected to include in my initial post addressed to you is that the final irony regarding the extreme Islamic movement in the Middle East is that it could never garner public support (aside from minimal spillover support as a reaction to Israeli problems), until Mr. Bush provided them with that support they had been longing for over more than 15 years. I do not mean to suggest that such a response to American activity in Iraq on the part of the regional inhabitants is reasonable or just, but that it was inevitable and foreseeable. They're subject to the local propaganda machines also.

I don't want to rehash the current political arguments with you, so I have no intention of pursuing this line beyond this current post, but the reasons for our war have nothing to do with protecting us from maniacs and everything to do with domestic politics, as explicitly stated by Mr. Bush himself in 1999. I'm sure you'll take me up on this and, please, have at me. :-) I'm going to try to resist the temptation to venture up this particular emotive alley myself, beyond the statements already made.

I appreciate your suggestions on books. No, I haven't yet read any Michener, but maybe now, reading your post, I will take a look. As for Leon Uris, I read some of his early works, but I haven't read him for years. I have one of his more recent books, but for some reason it hasn't appealed to me enough to read it. My guess pretty well coincided with your experience, so maybe I never will. Thanks for the recommendation of Morgan Llewellyn - I'm always on the lookout for good author's. Another author whose name I can't remember, but one with whom you may already be familiar, is that historian who wrote a series of novels based on the premise that the South won the Civil War. I've heard this guy makes for fascinating reading. I can find out his name if you're interested - as I say, you may well already know who I'm talking about and can remind me of his name.

Thanks for the response.

You [Poohbah] are obviously one of THEM, judging by how much of an arse you've been on this entire thread.

I have to comment in Poohbah's defense that if one read the first 50 posts of this thread, I think it's clear that Poohbah came under personal attack prior to any personal attacks that he's dished out. Any criticisms from poohbah in those early posts were not directed at individuals, but generalized, which I personally consider inoffensive.

Well, firstly, I think I must apologize to you and retract a comment I made about your lack of knowledge about Ireland and Europe. I'm no historian and it's apparent to me that you are certainly every bit as knowledgeable as I am about these things, if not more so. Nor do I think I could accuse you of being more selective than I in your choice of references - it's just that you probably select different things than I do. :-)

Secondly, while I'm flattered by your appraisal of my eloquence, I must differ with your statement that you can "only aspire" to such "eloquence" - reading your post, it is apparent to me that you are at least every bit as eloquent as I. At least. At worst, I might suggest that such a word might be a wee bit hyperbolic for either of us.

It's interesting to me that you mention Conor Cruise O'Brien, because years ago, his regular column was one of the things I looked forward to every sunday in the Observer (going back to around the time of Thatcher). I always enjoyed his writing and his perspective. I'm sure you know he had been an Irish Minister (I don't recall which post - it was before my time). Although he was conservative minded, it always struck me that he was far more conservative on things Irish than he was on anything else in the world. The view of him I encountered most often in this country on his ideas about Northern Ireland was that he was heavily one sided.

However, I think he was wrong in his assessment of the "volatile fusion of religion and nationalism" in the sense that it was highly misleading. Yes, I think that was the fire of volatility that was fanned by certain interests, mostly British and often for purposes that had more to do with British domestic politics. You probably heard or read about Randolph Churchill (Winston's father) playing what was known as "The Ulster Card" for domestic political purposes. That was actually described pretty well by Leon Uris in Trinity. Yes, I know it was only a novel, but his research was solid and his portrayal of those events, by all accounts I've ever run across, was pretty accurate.

The historical problem in Ireland was never really about religion. In fact, in the early 1800's, Ireland had laws regarding the freedom of religion that were far more progressive than most of the civilized world. And you were right about the non-Irish character of some major Irish representatives for freedom, but I think it would be, perhaps, more to the point to mention that they were Protestant. Even after Collins accepted the British division of the six counties from the rest of the Republic, some of the strongest representation of the Catholic population in Northern Ireland came from the Protestant community.

Traditionally, targetting civilians was not an element of IRA policy either (referring to your comment about the Zionist movements, which discussion might be better left to another time). In fact, if, for instance, you think of the first "Bloody Sunday" in the 20th century, Collins anguished over the murder of 14 British intelligence officers (which effectively destroyed the British Secret Service presence in Ireland at the time), which were clearly military targets. (When I say the first "Bloody Sunday", I'm referring only to the two primary events of that name in Ireland in the 20th century - not, for instance, the Russian Bloody Sunday... it seems that just about everybody has their own "special" sunday.) My point is that there were specific military targets in that particular act of 'terrorism', with zero collateral damage.

If we move forward to the other so-called Bloody Sunday, in 1972, it's important to realize the events that led to it. The increase in British military presence in NI at the time was initiated actually at the behest of the Catholic population, which was begging for protection. (You'll notice that no one ever speaks of Irish terrorism in terms of the protestant movements over the last 50 years.) But when they came, for political reasons, they harassed the populations of Catholic areas, which led to the development of the NI civil rights movement, which was non-violent. On that fateful day in 1972, the IRA had agreed to stay out of it entirely. We can discuss that day further if you wish to.

My overall point is to comment on the first post you made about Irish terrorism, which was pretty condemning and generalizing, entirely out of context. That it became a monster subsequently is not in argument here, but that monster did not spring from a vacuum and there is a lot to be answered for on both sides. I sure, for instance, the use of torture on a regular basis by the British in NI is not something that got much exposure on that side of the Atlantic. I'm not defending one evil by blaming another evil, only saying that contexts are complex and have long histories.

I'd recommend books written by Tim Pat Coogan if you want to gain insight into the IRA, its history and its methods. Specifically "The IRA" and "On the Blanket", though he has written many. From all personal accounts I've run into, from people with radically different takes on that situation, these histories seem to be viewed as fair, unbiased, and well researched.

So maybe, in the end, you'll reconsider your rejection of and shame over your heritage. :-) (However, if you lived here for an extended period, you might decide to reject it anyway!)

You're ancestry to this country is obviously far more recent than my own. One line of the family was in the US in the Revolutionary War - you certainly recall Washington's crossing the Delaware, but you are probably unaware that there was another boat in front of Washington's, which carried the scout - who was my ancestor. (I don't know if he was standing up - I hope not. LOL.)

More recently, it was my father's great grandfather who left Ireland for England, and his two sons, my father's grandfather and great uncle who moved from there to the United States. My mother's side is far more vague, but it seems to be a hodgepodge of German, Welsh, and Irish.

On socialism, I think you're right in that it probably comes down to our definitions of that word. Personally, I don't consider a system with extensive social programs and some level of regulation to be a socialist system if it is essentially a capitalist system and one of private ownership. Furthermore, if we are going to define socialism, perhaps we'd better work on defining fascism also. If, to make a little leap, we want to truly simplify and define communism at one extreme as government control or ownership of business, then we must define fascism as business control or ownership of government. At that point, we'd be heading for a really big argument as to whether Europe or the United States is more reflective of the most moderate compromise between the two. :-)

However, I'm not a political scientist or, as I mentioned, a historian and I run more on intuition and a sense of the movement of things. To me personally, the world entire is heading toward hell in a handbasket in the short term (although I would contend that I'm ultimately an optimist and that things will work out well in the long term - but a long term that will be beyond the reach of our mutual lifespans)- each country/region in its own fashion.

You mentioned Pat Buchanan and his exploration of concerns about what happens when government gets too big. But I'm sure you're well aware that Buchanan is no fan of the current administration, nor of the neoconservative approach to foreign policy. And I'm sure you're also aware that the government is bigger than ever (at least in recent times) under the present administration. (But maybe we need to define "big" in this context as well. lol)

I think that perhaps another area worth exploring sometime (which I won't here - after all, this is supposed to be a mere post) is the depression in the USA back in the 30's and the political forces at play at the time. I believe our country came closer to disaster than most people alive today realize. Far closer. And with the emphasis in education over the last 40 years growing increasingly toward technical areas (for which we can blame - or credit, if you prefer - Jimmy Carter, strangely enough, far more than most people realize), I have great fears for all of us in our lack of understanding of historical forces and contexts.

Anyway, I ramble. You said you "often tend to digress when [you] write" and that you "happen to see a lot of connectivity in issues" - well, all I can say is that I do the same and am probably more guilty of incoherent leaps in subject than one would suggest of you. :-) Of course, as a practical matter, this makes it exceedingly difficult to discuss anything at all. 30 years ago, I was told I reminded someone of Camus. As I was unfamiliar with the writings of Camus, he explained that Camus would start out talking about a teaspoon and end up talking about God without ever changing the subject. I could certainly identify with that. As a relatively lazy writer, I'm afraid my exposition is even more jarringly fragmented with apparent leaps from subject to subject, compounded when I wish to address another's similar apparently free association approach to subject.

"Don't know if you've ever noticed it before, but sometimes we make "radical" statements here on FR just to illustrate our "disgust." "

No one seemed to have noticed that it would appear that that was exactly what tsr_dog was doing. However, I'll defer to other opinions on this, since I never actually saw any of the posts, only those bits that others quoted. Further, in fact, knowing the guy, I suspect he was just winding everyone up. I guess he went too far.

"Poohbah likes to sit as judge and jury , let him argue with himself."

That's not my impression, reading this thread. Certainly not when you return to the first hundred posts or so. It looks to me like many others want to sit as judge and jury and Poohbah is challenging them on this.

I'm not going to argue this, because I don't care and I'm mostly just reading the arguments about the journalist without comment.

"Curious that an Irishman would complain about welfare since the economy of Ireland was for years completely propped up by the other socialist nations of the European Union. If you are indeed in Ireland, then you are more of a welfare client than you are likely aware of or willing to consider acknowledging.

"Europeans invented the welfare state, and the Irish until recently have been among the greatest purveyors of terrorism that the world has ever seen. The Islamic throwbacks have certainly taken terrorism to new heights, but we all should also keep in mind the antics of a largely revered faction of Ireland's political circumstances. I am ashamed sometimes to be of that heritage when I consider the terrorists tactics utilized by my distant relatives. I am glad that my remote cousins do not know how lowly I consider some of their countrymen to be.

"There is no way to tell for certain about your residence, but your associate Lifted Spirits seems to want to deflect from the possibility that you are indeed of Irish extraction. That appears to be some method of attributing to you a bit of legitimacy."

You're addressing that to both of us, but it's obviously aimed at tsr_god. I can't speak for him, but I suspect he was somewhat tongue in cheek. I imagine what was meant was in terms of state aid, rather then welfare recipients. However, I know that some red states are among the biggest money producers in the USA, so regardless it has little or no basis in fact.

But the part I'm interested in addressing is your view of Europe and the Irish in particular. First of all, Europe does not consist of socialist states. I know this view arose initially from the hyperbole of political rhetoric and has since, it seems, from reading forum discussions, have taken on the characteristics of a myth. Working for an American company, I know and meet a large number of Americans abroad and they all laugh uproariously at this conception of Europe. All European states have capitalist economies.

Back in the 50's and 60's, Sweden had very high taxes and had a large number of social programs, so it too was often seen as socialist minded - but it was also richer than the USA, proportionately, which caused no end of consternation among Americans. So we all grew up hearing about how high the suicide rates were in Sweden (another myth), almost as if we were to think Swedes were very unhappy.

There's some truth to what you say about Ireland. The first major step to pull Ireland from poverty came from the initiative to provide massive tax breaks to foreign multi-nationals for exported goods, so a lot of American companies came here which apparently did wonders for the economy (I say 'apparently', because the Irish all thought they were suddenly getting good jobs with decent wages, not realizing that they were effectively getting loans). That was probably the biggest influence over ensuing decades that propped up this country.

However, it is also true that over recent years, an immense amount of aid has arrived into the country from the EC, as grants for various things, like building better roads. No argument there. But this country is hardly socialist minded, believe me. It has the highest prices in Europe (something the Tourist board likes to hide or simply deny) and the highest wages of most Western European countries. When I buy a garbage bag for my rubbish to be collected (many people have 'wheely bins', but some still use 'bin bags'), I have to pay 5.80 Euro for one bag, to get it collected by the private company who have a monopoly on garbage collection. Growing up in the USA, I don't remember anyone in my family having to dish out extra cash to get their rubbish collected - presumably you don't view the USA as socialist because the state collects rubbish, paid for by taxes.

As for your comments about the IRA - yes, truthfully, they have been the nastiest, most brutal creatures over the last couple of decades. Believe me, you don't hear the half of it over there. But worse were the extremist spin off groups, who tend to get more publicity. However, this state of affairs has largely been over the last 20 years, give or take. But through most of the history of the North, and of the Republic when you go back far enough, that was not the case. Dare I say that you don't seem to have a very broad knowledge of the history of this country and it's neighbor to the East. Your summation was far, far too simplistic. I'd be happy to discuss this, but it would be very far off topic here.

I'll just add something here about Islamic terrorism, about which I'm sure we can be in complete agreement. The terrible irony there is that back in the 80's, the "fundamental Islamicists" were opposed to violence, intending instead to garner power through democratic means and then maintain it through undemocratic means. But not through violence. The extreme of the extreme, who started coming up with rationalizations for violence, were very fringe and were also very, very unpopular among the Arab populations. Those groups, through assassination, basically took over the fundamentalist Islamic movement, but even then were in danger of heading straight into extinction and as they broadened their "acceptable" targets for violence, became even more unpopular.

When Gorbachov could see the writing on the wall for the USSR and recognized that he could not remain in Afghanistan, he virtually begged Washington to help set up a moderate government in Afghanistan, for the good of BOTH major powers. But the neocons would have none of it and exactly what Gorbachove foresaw in Afghanistan and what all of us now know about is exactly what happened. Also, completely inadvertantly, the neocons gave a much needed boost to the now violent extreme Islamics. Furthermore, much as the neocons developed the concept of the "Evil Empire" (and subsequently, the "Axis of Evil"), the Islamics not long after found a new common enemy, the "Great Satan", which helped them prevent their own self-destruction through the violence they were aiming at one another. And just as the neocons created and fed the myth that they had felled the Evil Empire, the Islamics (not the Mujahadin) also created and fed the myth that THEY had brought down the Evil Empire (as Russia was to them also), even though they actually had hardly done any of the fighting.

Again, having done this twice today, I apologize for drifting so far afield from the topic.

"A week or two back, the little woman and me were coming back from our workout and I saw a yellow lab running free a block or 2 from Elwoods house. So I stopped the car and went over to him and wasn't sure if he was Elwood or not. I talked to him and petted him and all that trying to figure out if he was Elwood or not. I couldn't tell. But the dog was very pleasant and didn't mind me messing with him.

I got in the car and went to Elwoods owners house and knocked on the door (7 a.m.). The lady came to the door and I asked if Elwood may have gotten out and told them the story. But Elwood was safe in the house. So it was a case of mistaken identity."

I love that story! Hilarious. I must tell you about a similar thing.

I have 3 Setters - a mother and two daughters. Also a friend of mine (a woman born in Jamaica, raised in New York, and living here) is the guardian of the brother of the younger dogs. Brando. She goes back to New York every Christmas for a few weeks to spend time with her aging mother, so I usually look after Brando while she's gone.

Now, male setters tend to wander, but the females tend to stick closer. So when I let them all out of the car, they don't go anywhere - in fact, on occasions where someone has left the rear gate open, I've discovered them waiting for me on the front porch. So I guess I can get a little careless.

I came back with all 4 dogs one day and was just getting my groceries out of the boot. In a flash, Brando was gone. I really panicked. Hustled my 3 into the house and set out in the car to look for him. Up a parellel street and to the right down a cul de sac, I thought I spotted him. So I drove up and jumped out and immediately berated him for running away. But as I was talking to him, I began to wonder if he was actually Brando - yet, he came to me and obeyed me, so I was confused. For the life of me, I couldn't remember the collar Brando had been wearing. Some woman was walking by with her own little squirt of a dog and I asked her if she recognized him from the neighborhood, but she said she hadn't seen any Setters around there.

I opened the rear door of the car and he jumped right in. I went home, let him out, and went into the house and he followed me every step of the way. But inside, in the foyer, the other 3 seemed a bit subdued and were eyeing him very suspiciously (if you'll permit me a bit of anthropomorphism). Then I noticed that "Brando" was running all over the place sniffing at everything, as if he was in an unfamiliar place.

By now, I was in a bit of a panic, thinking that not only might I have lost Brando (I live near a busy street where cars will travel at 40, even 50 mph), but that I might just have kidnapped someone else's dog. I tried to phone New York to ask about the collar, but no one was home.

So I drove him back to the spot I'd found him and went to the door of the corner house there to ask about him. Some poor elderly lady answered the door and initially staggered a bit at the sight of these vagabonds at her door and I was afraid the poor dear would have a heart attack. I stood well back and quickly asked her about the dog - she told me he belonged to a family that lived just up a laneway right across the street. I took him home, but all this time I was getting sick with worry about the real Brando. Not only for traffic, but also because there had been a rash of thefts of purebred dogs in County Wicklow over the previous months.

Back at my own street, but down near the corner and the fast road, I was asking people going by if they'd seen a dog in some state of alarm, when one of them turned around and pointed up the street and asked, "is that him?" Sure enough, here came brando up the street, without a care in the world and looking like he was just wondering what all the excitement was about.

Anyway, sorry to turn that into such a long story. You just reminded me of it with your own case of mistaken identity, which had me splitting my sides here.

"I think he's back.. renamed in an attempt to throw us off.
*snort*
None too clever though."

No. But I can understand such an assumption. I'm sure I'd make the same assumption.

"yeah, I see TSR-Dog went on quite a streak prior to getting banned... He sent me a heck of a tirade repleat with personal attacks and all.... I will admit that I cannot understand why both him and 2 other poster decided to deride me for making the comment in the begining of this thread that Sites should have been pulled for safety reason... I have been attack by three different posters for making those comments.. I don't mind they made their points, but seem to miss my point completly...This is obviously a hot button issue for some people."

Well, for what it's worth, that strikes me as a fairly sensible suggestion. I don't know why the other three climbed on your for it, but maybe they were just railing against reality a bit - that is, it's unfortunate that things might be as you suggest, but you are right.

"Are you channeling him, or is he sitting next to you telling you what to type? Or... IS HE YOU???"

No, I'm not a channel. LOL. But, yes, he's sitting... well, not quite right next to me, but a few cubicles away.

We're both Americans and we work for an American corporation in Ireland. (Yes, he would like to login as me, but I won't tell him the password. There's an irony in that, but I can't explain since I know he still reads here from time to time. I'll get pestered for that little remark.)

"Hey, laddie, are you back? No Irish flag in the profile? No defammatory statements about the USA?"

No, I'm not back. I told you I'm not tsr_dog. Sigh.

Hi tsr_dog, welcome to FR. Some friendly advice, if I may. If you wish your tenure here to be longer than a few hours, I'd suggest you be careful about painting all conservatives with such a broad brush. As you can see, there are strong differences of opinion among conservatives right on this very thread.

Well, malakhi, you were obviously quite correct. tsr_dog got his posting rights revoked. I only came here to say one thing, as I'm personally not much into arguments. Because I know tsr_dog.

Firstly, tsr (for short) is American, completely, with ancestry back to the revolutionary war. In fact, members of his family have fought in every major US conflict in its history, including Vietnam and all wars previously to the revolutionary war.

Secondly, believe me, tsr was fully aware of hyperventilating rhetoric, as you put it, that was was engaged in. No disputes there. He felt that the forum was rife with it and decided to dish some of his own out in return, knowing full well the likely consequences. The things you refer to in your quotation - death threats, mob justice, media hatred - are all things that this particular forum subject is filled with. (Yes, I read the entire thread and had actually caught most of tsr's posts before they were deleted. I had intended to be a silent observer, really.)

I assure you that he is very well aware that there are differences in opinion among conservatives. Knowing him as I do, believe me, he does not live on stereotypes in reality. And his reference in the section you quoted was not, I don't believe, aimed at conservatives as a grouping, but only the more extreme elements who support the philosophies and goals of neocons.

Anyway, he wishes you all well and holds no hard feelings about it. This isn't the sort of forum he would have been likely to be a regular contributor to anyway.

I must say he takes such cavalier treatment better than I would have, for which of course no one can blame the posters. All I can say is - free republic?

I wish you all well also. Good luck and as a fellow American, I hope we as a nation can mend our fences and close the gaps produced by polarization. It will take time.