Today Commentar's blog Contention reminds me silence is golden

One of the many lessons I learned living in London is that silence is golden. In fact I certainly haven't learned this lesson enough. Intellectually, I know that silence is far superior to the arguments I make. Especially those that are made on the Internet that can not be unwritten, last forever, and are accessible to virtually everybody in the world.

But sometimes Keeping one's mouth closed can be the hardest thing to do. often when one reads an editorial or commentary often bring forth in the reader strong emotions. These emotions can feel welts on the soul. The temptation to scratch by writing a response can overwhelming.

One of the sites that I read often read is Commentary. The contentions blog is one of my nearly daily reads. I truly believe that this is a crucial time in Israel's history. I have become fascinated with the responses that neoconservatives have toward the current Israeli crisis. I have been amazed how little it is discussed amongst neoconservatives and how few ideas they seem to have for Israel's continued viability.

I have also become very interested in the new ideas that are being discussed in they conservative community. I have also been amazed that of the paucity of ideas. Conservatives still don't seem to have any plan for dealing with the generation long stagnation in wages for the working and lower middle class workers, or for the reduced access to health insurance an pensions.

I would think this would be a time to come up with conservative solutions to these crisis However the tendency seems to still be to deny that a problem exist or to say that nothing can be done

So when I see articles that have these flaws I become extremely frustrated. But I am not a disinterested reader. I believe that liberal ideas are the ones that are most likely to be effective in facing these policies. To advance my goals I realize that I often must refrain from joining the arguments.

So I have a developed some principals for when to keep my fingers from typing.

1. Don't attack your opponent when he or she is falling. Rarely does it benefit you to try make your opponent fall harder or faster. Often times you simply get pulled down yourself. Further when you are trying to influence a disinterested observer, it is far more persuasive to make it clear that your opponent is falling from the weakness of his or her own position rather than by your efforts. Finally by allowing your opponent to fall unaided, you can use that time to prepare to kick them when they are down.
2. Avoid attacking your opponent when their position is superior to your own. If you leave the matter uncontested you leave the disinterested observer with a modicum of doubt that most likely would be removed if you showed your cards.
3. Avoid attacking your opponent when you are clearly in a superior position. Nothing displays confidence in your ideas more than resiting the urge to answer the poor ideas of your opponent.
4. Avoid attacking your opponent if your opponent is a superior communicator, or thinker. Martin Luther actually lost the important debates he had regarding church reform, because the debater for the conservative side was superior. Express your ideas when you have a chance for victory. Don't allow your own inadequacies to taint your strong positions.

These are of course merely a few reasons to remain silent. I will keep listing them. In a debate the eloquence of silence is rarely equaled.

Do Neo-Cons Love Tax Cuts More than Israel

The following text appears predominantly on the website for Commentary:

President Obama meet the loyal opposition

Commentary

As a new political era begins, America's most important most vital monthly magazine will be the ready.

To Stand up for America an the West.

To stand up to Islamofacism.

To stand up for Israel

To stand up to anti-Semitism.

What exactly is the meaning of all this? Is Obama aniti-America or anti-West? Is Obama soft on Islamofacism, while appointing Hillary, do I have to wait to be sworn in before I can press the button, for Secratary of Defense might have been ideal from the neo-con point of view, as Secretary of State she is no mean shakes either.

In fact while some of the neo-con personalities may not be in White House the changes in foriegn policy seem more rebranding than retooling. This is actually borne out in the articles on the site that seem to be much less about these issues, than the ecconomic issues.

Why then exactly do the neo-cons want to style themselves as the opposition? The argument over the ecconomy will be around forever, and the fall of the Soviet Union the capitalism conversion of China, shows that nothing ecconomic can't be undone. Israel, however, seems to be at a moment of crisis.

I am in no way implying that neo-cons should abandon their domestic agenda. But, do they really want to define themselves in opposition to the administration that will make so many critical decisions concerning Israel. Or, would it be better to focus on the shared ideals and goals, and save the opposiition for when it is most needed?

Well, whatever these neocons are up to they are making a pretty good that they are not allowing their concern for Israel, affect their loyalties to the United States.

What Conservative Censors Tell Us About Their Fears

I have been toying around with the idea of creating something similar to Person to Person Offense for for various publications and websites. I really have enough on my plate as it is. I really need to try to convert things so that they are more peer created which has always my intention.

But I have noticed some things about a couple of publications that I thought might be useful. I have noticed that both New Majority, which I discovered carried entries by Newt Gingrich, and Commentary seem to censor non-offensive post. Though the Contentions section seems to be less censored.

Obviously, they can post or not post whatever they want anywhere on their site or nowhere. But I think that I have perceived, on both New Majority and Commentary, against arguments that suggest that efforts by Conservatives have not made America safer, and that efforts by neo-conservatives, have not made Israel safer. So, these must be arguments that they fear.

Use this technique on the conservative blogs and sites you monitor to find out where the site operators think their weak points are. Why work hard when your competitor is pleased to do the work for you.

The Person to Person Offense The Concept

If you have read a lot of newspapers or surfed around on the net or listened to talk radio one reality quickly becomes apparent. There are many many conservative commentators for every liberal commentator. This seems especially peculiar especially given the election of Obama, who ran on the most liberal main party platform in decades.

There are many reasons for this disparity, some are sinister. Others are mundane. Among them is that conservative media outlets hire overwhelmingly more conservative commentators than liberal commentators. Many outlets such as Townhall, part of the Newscorp empire, does not have any liberal commentators and seemingly has not even ever invited a liberal guest commentator.

The mainstream press started at a position where most of their commentators where considered well mainstream. Conservatives complained that this was well somewhat to the left of them. Despite the fact that these columnist are at least as right of mainstream liberal commentators as they were left of mainstream conservative commentators most mainstream outlets responded by hiring Conservative commentators, and encouraging their current commentators to move to the right. Lastly most liberal outlets such as Huffington Post have at least some conservative commentators.

Another reason that conservative commentators are over-represented is the fact that most news media in the United States is add supported, even public radio and television, though they are referred euphemistically as something else. Advertisements are overwhelmingly paid for by businesses. The people that buy the adds dictate the news. This is why there is business section in almost all papers but no labour section, there once was in most papers. The advertisers want to see conservative commentators, and despite claims that editorial policy is independent of advertisers wishes, the advertisers do indeed get what they want.

The final reason I will discuss in this post, is that conservative groups simply buy commentators. Especially if you look at "former liberals", such as Linda Chavez, you will find that they received substantial monetary support from conservative groups before their road to Damascus conversions. Anyone who has studied spy cases will tell you that people will sell out their country, risking execution, for the most nominal of fees. Imagine how much easier it is to get someone to engage in a betrayal that is at least legal.

For all these reasons and many more, there is never likely to be parity between Conservative and Liberal professional commentators. This is why I am trying to start the person to person offense movement. If as many liberals as possible keep records of the various falsehoods and mendacities of conservative commentators and politicians we can provide the resources to allow immediate responses to their arguments despite being out manned amongst professional commentators. Chose your person, stick on them and put your info on the web so we can all use it.