Showing posts with label Opinionator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinionator. Show all posts

Monday, July 18, 2011

How to turn a 'blind eye' to crime

I'll admit after reading Dave Stancliff's masterful “Opinion” Sunday, July 17, 2011, I had to read it again and skim through it one more time to finally “get” his reason for writing: Counting the many ways crime does pay.” - His solitary reason for why crime should NOT pay, that is, IF everyone does their part. Or, in other words, why everyone should turn a “blind-eye to crime.”

His reasoning: “As It Stands, the answer is to not buy, read, or listen to any true stories about killers in our society.” REMEMBER, his words, not mine.

Here he conflates crime, murder and murders with the word “killer.” As such, we could add some other words such as “assassin,” “assassinate,” “manslayer,” “manslaughter” to name a few. Of course we also have, something that is “extremely difficult or perilous”: reading all Stancliff's Opinion was “murder.” Then there is, “to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.”: Stancliff “murdered” that opinion. Next we have, “to engage in a deplorable activity without incurring harm or punishment”: The readers let Stancliff and the Times-Standard Editors get away with “murder.” Next: “to protest loudly and angrily”: Stancliff screamed bloody “murder” at his critique. Finally, the two reasons for posting this article (1), “get away with murder, to escape censure; do as one pleases”: For years, now, Dave Stancliff's gotten away with “murder” by getting the newspaper to publish his lame opinions. Lastly (2), “to destroy; ruin”: He murdered her reputation and good name.

Makes one wonder if Stancliff was talking about himself? Every Sunday the Times-Standard devotes one half page to him and what does he do? Does he write about serious, important local issues that go to the very heart of everyone's lives in the North Coast? His record speaks for itself.

Does he respect his readers and simply lay out the facts so the reader can decide what to do, how to think or believe? He says: “As It Stands, the answer is to not buy, read, or listen to any true stories about killers in our society.” That sounds a whole lot like TELLING people what to do: “not buy, read or listen to any TRUE stories about killers.” Never you mind stories based on factually false propaganda,spouted as the official line, about lies, fantsies and worthless opinions. There's another word for what he's telling people to do: CENSORSHIP.

If you do what he tells you to do the first thing you'll do is stop reading the newspaper. You certainly will not buy it to read the article across the page by Nat Hentoff, Is there an emancipation day for 'good faith' torturers?” Hentoff is talking about the “true stories” of war crimes that involved deliberate murder and murderers. Crimes that involve the current U.S. President Barack Obama and the past President George Bush and their administrations or governments (Bush/Cheney & Obama/Biden). Better to turn a blind eye to these criminals and their crimes – out of site, out of mind.

The consequences should be obvious. When questionable activities that amount to torture (use of tazers, for instance) or a violent death that occurs at the hands of the local police no one pays any attention. Well, except, maybe for a few mentally questionable, liberal radicals. “Shit happens,” they (the blind) are fond of saying, but these kooks can't accept that fact. What about the killers that make a practice of deliberately running stop signs? If that's the kind of world or community you want to live in, then by all means read what Dave Stancliff tells you to read, listen to, and buy.
--Joe

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Who Killed Roger Rabbit a.k.a. The Free Press?


My question is, why are we routinely subjected to unchallenged demeaning and degrading opinions and outright lies produced in the newspapers and on TV as if it is the God's gospel Truth?

Notice the subtitle in the picture: "THE ROBIN HOOD OF HACKING"? Look familiar?

The following article "Opinionator Assassinator Strikes Again" is about the latest local hack attack on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks where the local Times-Standard newspaper and their use of wannabe authority, to pump out consensus propaganda as "natural matter of fact and truth." If Julian Assange is the kind of a person Dave Stancliff says he is then PRODUCE THE PROOF to back it up. The Times-Standard needs to enforce, if not show, a little common consideration and respect for the reader. We'll decide what kind of a person he is. That worthless "opinion" is nothing more than gossip-mongering. Everyone that reads such tripe should be offended and disgusted. So far I haven't found ONE letter to the Editors complaining about this public insult.

The following article by Glenn Greenwald on this subject is not only an "Update" continuing to refute this unchallenged propaganda, but to demonstrate a non-offensive presentation of the facts. Here's the link:

The merger of journalists and government officials

The following excerpt is offered here because it directly addresses our local problem:
(2) From the start of the WikiLeaks controversy, the most striking aspect for me has been that the ones who are leading the crusade against the transparency brought about by WikiLeaks -- the ones most enraged about the leaks and the subversion of government secrecy -- have been . . . America's intrepid Watchdog journalists.  What illustrates how warped our political and media culture is as potently as that?  It just never seems to dawn on them -- even when you explain it -- that the transparency and undermining of the secrecy regime against which they are angrily railing is supposed to be . . . what they do.
--Joe

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Joe Blow Walks In Tall Clover


In many ways it is always nice to know that there are others out there in this world that share similar experiences as you - both good and bad. So, when I read Glenn Greenwald's latest article, More on the media's Pentagon-subservient WikiLeaks coverage dealing with The New York Times' John Burns and his non-story about the latest WikiLeaks revelations: WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety, I began to wonder if some of our local Opinionators were taking lessons from John Burns.

Glenn Greenwald deals with the same kinds of issues as I have and he lives in Brazil. I guess not everyone thinks he's a "media critic." Glenn updated his article with this comment:

I don't have much to add to what either reporter said there, as I think my critiques stand on their own, and I've already addressed most of the excuses offered. I will, however, note two points: (1) one the cheapest, most slothful and most intellectually dishonest methods for refuting an argument is to mockingly slap the label of "conspiracy theory" on it, as though the argument then becomes self-refuting; that's virtually always a non-responsive strawman, and that's exactly what Burns does in purporting to address my criticisms even though, manifestly, nothing I said qualifies as such; and (2) it's a very significant -- and positive -- change even from a couple of years ago that these reporters are not only loudly exposed to criticisms of their work, but feel compelled to expend substantial efforts engaging them and responding.
Sound familiar?

The picture? That comes from Wikipedia and the Study of Saints, "Hagiography." Glenn explains:
"Hagiography" is exactly what the American establishment media does, when it comes to powerful American political and military leaders.  Slimy, personality-based hit pieces are reserved for those who are scorned by the powerful ..."
"Powerful." Like local newspapers, their reporters and Opinionatores that "feel compelled to expend substantial efforts engaging them and responding" to their critic's "criticisms of their work"? Glenn's point, if they had any personal integrity or loyalty to the truth, they wouldn't need to defend themselves, now would they?

Integrity:
1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished.
3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition.
--Joe

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Pot Calls Kettle Black


[UPDATE Below]

A great scholar quoting some ancient words made the following observation and wrote them down for us today over 2,000 years ago:

It's written, “I'll turn conventional wisdom on its head, I'll expose so-called experts as crackpots.”  So where can you find someone truly wise, truly educated, truly intelligent in this day and age? Hasn't God exposed it all as pretentious nonsense?
As some of you that follow this blog know, this Report has had fun for the past year with the premier tub-thumping, pretentious, Opinionator, Pontificator or Big-Mouth Blowhard at the Times-Standard newspaper. In a couple of days it will be a month since he came here to try to defile the Joe Blow Report again. In the meantime we posted the teaser-test, the “Modern Day Vampire” on July 19, 2010, to see if he would do what he said. The trick, of course, is to confront these “suckers” without giving them any energy, light or life. You know the old saying, “play with fire, get burned.” Same thing with Energy Vampires, egoistic people that can't exist on their own power, you run the serious risk of getting infected yourself.

Well, wouldn't you just know it? These last two Sunday Times-Standard Editions of As It Stand's exposés revealed a couple of interesting facts about his gross hypocrisy and why he's still a fixture at the paper.

An opinionated person is defined as “one given to conjecture.” Note, “conjecture” is the opposite of “fact.” Fact is defined: “something that actually exists; reality; truth.” Conjecture on the other hand is defined as: 1) The formation of expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2) An opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation. 3) Obsolete: the interpretation of signs or omens. – Really not quite so “obsolete” as you might think it is.

For example, someone may dream an image or a reflection of you, believe that dream is a fact and justify that dream-judgment, act on it and call you a stupid idiot – that would be a lie. It is a lie because it is based on an unfounded opinion; it originated in that "someone's" mind. However, the anger you consequently feel is the truth, because that experience is a fact. You didn't dream it up in your head. Unfortunately, if you act on what you experienced and beat the hell out of that “someone” you may just become, for a fact, a stupid idiot.

When this guy's public accusations and ad hominem assaults went way 'beyond the pale,' (Unacceptable; outside agreed standards of decency) we brought this matter to the Times-Standard management. They politely told us that what he said or did on his blog, other blogs, bulletin boards and on other Internet domains had nothing to do with them. That's not always true with other mainstream newspaper and TV companies. We wondered at the time what they'd say if he'd actually used the pejorative “N” word, since he called us just about everything else. We did what we could and let the matter stand. The paper publishing Dave Stancliff's opinions says more about the newspaper than it could ever say about him. While Dave Stancliff is doing the writing, it is the newspaper that is doing the talking. That's what these observations are about.

He concludes his latest Sunday “standing,” declaring: “Stupid is as stupid does.” And what “Stupid” did was expose his true nature coming on this blog with his wanton litany of diatribe (a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism) and demagoguery (defined below). His public conduct, despite his monumental efforts to the contrary put forth in these last two newspaper columns, destroyed whatever credibility and integrity he had. This problem for the newspaper is somewhat modified or obfuscated because not everyone reads the Joe Blow Report and actually experiences his conduct. In his Sunday, July 25, 2010, where he and the newspaper are celebrating his two year anniversary, he explains why his conduct was and is ignored by the Managing Editor, Kimberly Wear.

Just a side-note, he says, “I've learned not to get upset at negative feedback [...].” He certainly can't prove that statement by what he said to and about us. By the way, this article is NOT "negative feedback." This is our observations on two Times-Standard newspaper articles and the public conduct of Dave Stancliff.

What motivated this observation, “The Pot Calls the Kettle Black,” was his latest “opinion” in the Sunday, August 1, 2010, Times-Standard, his brilliant masterpiece: As It Stands: 'I know I'm right' syndrome or being stupid and proud of it.

Dave Stancliff would serve his and his readers best interests if he was to read, apply and put into practice “The Four Agreements” by Miguel Ruiz. Those Four Agreements are: 1) Be Impeccable with your word. 2) Don't take anything personally. 3) Don't make assumptions. And 4) Always do your best.

When he does he will repudiate his very first statement: “Regardless of the way some of us act, no one is perfect.” Writing this declaratory statement violates all four agreements. If he wants to believe that unsubstantiated opinion is somehow truth or fact because he believes it is, that's his business. Here again, he's trying to tell everyone how to think solely based upon his ideas or more aptly, worthless judgmental opinions that he chooses to believe. Who gave him the right to tell anyone how to think or what to believe? The Times-Standard? God? Everything else he says is built upon that one monumental assumption. This is where he speaks only for himself.

The complete statement is “Regardless of the way some of us act, no one is perfect. That's where stupidity comes in. Because we know we're not perfect we often try to cover up our mistakes, or even the mistakes of others. That's stupid because everyone knows their time to screw up will come. It's as inevitable as taxes and death.” And that is why he is the “Pot” calling himself “Black.” He's stupid and he knows it. In his case, he hypocritically tries to cover up his mistakes, protect his flawed ego, by trying to blame those that don't agree with his dreams. [Emphasis added]

“Facts” are NOT the same as “Opinions.” Opinions are simply lies and conjecture, the opposite of facts and truth. Facts and truth are derived from experiencing reality. Lies, conjecture and worthless opinions come from the dreams and fantasies conjured in the mind. You would think, abstractly reading his Opinion in the newspaper, that he'd certainly know the difference. He says, “Facts enlighten us and result in clear thinking. Accepting facts is acknowledging the truth. To turn away from facts is stupid. But not everyone is interested in the truth.” Once again he equate his opinions as “truth.” Anyone that doesn't agree with “his” opinions rejects truth. According to him, anyone that doesn't accept his “facts” is guilty of unclear “thinking.” Therein lies the crux of the issue, disagree with one of these kinds of people and they immediately attack your inteligence and sanity. He certainly NEVER demonstrated any of the above understanding in what he wrote about us. Everything he expounds about us as “facts” are revealed only to be his worthless opinions, which he believes and acts upon as facts and excpects everyone to accept. When he acts upon his lies is when he reveals himself and is consequently judged accordingly. When it comes to “clear thinking” and “enlightenment,” the question goes begging. Unfortunately, if he wasn't such a blue-ribbon hypocrite, his column might just be worth reading – sometimes.

Of note, he concludes with the following: “Finally, we have institutional stupidity where we let lawmakers lead us into stupid wars that drain our economy. The cruel thing about all of this is the poor people who suffer through one stupid failure after another as our politicians continue to raise the bar in being stupid.”“Stupid wars” based on “LIES”? [Emphasis added]

And “we” wonder why? When the newspaper publishes LIES or “opinions” as fact and truth you got to seriously ask yourself who really is the “stupid” one, when the poor suffering people continue time after time to vote in these so-called “stupid politicians.” You don't suppose that it has anything to do with what and how the newspapers and other mainstream media produce their “facts,” do you? Besides, you got to ask yourself, why would Dave Stancliff and the Times-Standard newspaper want everyone to think that these politicians are, in fact “stupid” rather than plain old-fashioned malicious deviants promoting worthless opinions as facts and truth?

His ultimate hypocrisy is where he says, “People who are insecure or feel threatened can't move on when confronted with facts. Researchers have found these people are less likely to listen to dissenting opinions, and they are more easily controlled.” This is the ultimate stupidity when he equates “facts” with “opinions.” However, he really defines himself when he sums it all up here: “Combine that information with the fact that misinformed people often have the strongest opinions, and you have the ingredients for being stupid and proud of it.” "Misinformed people" are now classified as "stupid" people and "pround of it."

The conduct demonstrated within his historical statements posted on this blog alone, speak for themselves. It all started with our May 31, 2009, observation titled, "Trolls Versus the Thought Police” when we unearthed a cyber-bully and exposed ourselves to a whole lot of hate speech.

It was for this very purpose we left all of his comments available for anyone interested in the FACTS and the TRUTH. If subtle indoctrination and propaganda, being told how to think and what to believe, is acceptable with you, then you can accept some responsibility for this bold assertion: “Most Americans lack even a basic understanding of how our country works.” ... “[T]he political ignorance of the American voter is one of the best documented data in political science.”

Now we know why. “God exposed it all as pretentious nonsense.”

Demagogue:
“A person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. To treat or manipulate - obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.”


[UPDATE :: Friday, August 6, 2010]

Just like clockwork, guess who showed up this morning first thing? Some Chinese spammer and Dave Stancliff's pretty face. Did you note what he says in his comment below? Did you read his Sunday, August 1, 2010, As It Stands brilliant exposé and compare him to his comment? His unsolicited comment presented below demonstrates what the kind of people he wrote about in the newspaper are. This is some of what he said: 
People who are insecure or feel threatened can't move on when confronted with facts. Researchers have found these people are less likely to listen to dissenting opinions, and are more easily controlled.
Then he turns around, when given the opportunity, and acts exactly like them! Apparently, he's incapable of seeing his own hypocrisy when he accuses this writer's observations of being a "ridiculous rant." A classic example of what he says, "misinformed people" with "strong opinions" are "stupid and proud of it."  He totally justifies this Report's observations.

As bad as that is for someone publishing in the newspaper, he continually insults the reader with his unsubstantiated insinuations, lies and accusations. He expects you to agree with him and his worthless opinions and if you don't then you're proud, vain and stupid. In his mind that makes our observation, “Pot Calls Kettle Black,” without any example or demonstration, without any substantiating facts or even any of his opinionated conjecture, a “ridiculous rant.” That's what I call a vain act of pride. Unlike him and his pretentious conjecture we offer the reader the opportunity to consider the facts as experienced and decide for themselves. More importantly, just exactly like an Energetic Vampire Parasite, he expects me to give him what he wants – an invitation.

Why would anyone want to do that when he is already providing all this luscious “Opinionator” material. By the way, I do keep or comply with the Four Agreements. I am “impeccable with my word” and “always do my best.” If you can show me where I am not, please be my guest. Before you start throwing your opinions around, make sure you know what you're talking about. That means know what it means to "be impeccable with your word" and "always do your best." In other words, read the book, experience the agreements (a great help with your self-esteem and ability to accept what you are), then come talk. You just might  find out I really do posses a "sweet nature."



Dave has left a new comment on your post "Pot Calls Kettle Black":

So why would you have to leave the country (your words) for Brazil if people knew who you were Joe?
Just wondering...is it because of your sweet nature?
Or, have you ticked-off too many people with ridiculous rants like you posted here?
Posted by Dave to Joe Blow Report at August 6, 2010 7:45 AM
--Joe

Friday, July 9, 2010

Warmonger Writes About Peace II

Hatemonger Writes About Love

For those of you that don't know, a “warmonger” is defined as, “a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.” A “hatemonger” is defined as, “a person who kindles hatred, enmity, or prejudice in others.” The following comment posted on this blog Report by Dave Stancliff, one of many examples as far back as June 1, 2009, of language and intent that meets the above definitions.

It was actually May 31, 2009, that I posted some non-personal observations, "Trolls Versus the Thought Police," about a newspaper column that Dave Stancliff wrote for the Time-Standard newspaper exposing his agenda to dictate and control what and how people think about certain subjects that leads directly to war and the lawless debased state of affairs we're all forced to endure today because of people that think they can do and say to others whatever they want with impunity.

My observations over a year ago are proven justified and legitimate when Dave Stancliff changed the issue with his first ad hominem personal accusation. Ever since he's tried to make the issue between him and me and NOT about what he says, does or believes that he writes in the newspaper. Herein lies the crux of that problem, he writes for the local newspaper. Apparently they believe this kind of trash-talking garbage, racist obscenity is acceptable. That, somehow, his public actions do not reflect in anyway upon them and their newspaper. So be it. As long as they publish his so-called "opinions" the Report will publish its observations as it deems appropriate. As far as the writer(s) of this Report are conserned, Dave Stancliff was and is, as a person, irrelevant. Stancliff would like to believe someone here at the Report is angry, hates his guts, or holds a grudge, even some sort of "fan from hell," etc. that way he could become relevant.

About “paranoia” - that is the state of being wherein you are unable to distinguish between what you think and believe from who and what you are. In Dave Stancliff's case, when I wrote about his newspaper article he accused me of writing and attacking him. Stancliff's documented statements, repeated statements, define him, NOT ME! To re-state an obvious fact, that the claimed purpose of the article was a simple-minded knee-jerk response, in fact at the root of a very serious problem for the world and American society, is NOT, in and of itself, a personal attack on him. Neither do such statements of fact make someone angry nor paranoid. Not one time has Stancliff produced the “lies” he claims I said. Nor does he demonstrate what it is that supposedly makes me “angry.” I guess he thinks he can get away with making such statements because if anyone has a right to be angry it would be me. His wild and psychotic statements take on a hint of personal danger to me when he makes his veiled threats, “some kind of crazed fan from hell.” Let me remind everyone that not one time have I personally addressed or recognized Dave Stancliff other than the impersonal commentary written on this blog Report. I never go to his blog, nor do I say anything about his filthy comments about me (us) he spreads around the blogosphere.

The paranoia is demonstrated in Stancliff's self-important, elitist, god-like assertion that I am somehow a “fan” of his. That my indirect attention somehow makes him a god! Would-be gods are defined by their right to tell everyone what is and is not, but NEVER furnish any proof, i.e., “paranoia” and “hate.” In Stancliff's case, the proof they try to use is always whatever response they can use after-the-fact. His “ends” always “justify his means.”

One final thought on “offers” on the record, conflicts with Stancliff's convenient recollections. He came on this blog and offered to meet with me so we could discuss our “differences.” Before I could even begin to contemplate meeting with him I needed him to assure me he would not use that meeting to continue assaulting me with more of his accusations. He, did not stop making personal accusations even then, but did make another offer for an “interview.” Again he asserts some measure of superiority by offering to do this so I can get a wider coverage of readers. Whatever made him think that might be important to me, I don't know. Regardless, his refusal to even consider what I might need to meet demonstrates that his offers were disingenuous – made for ulterior reasons.

Remember, “Everything Is About Something Different.” I've learned in this life that people like Dave Stancliff, people that persist in making false, lying accusations, do so because they know what they say and write ARE lies. They know that if what they said was true, these people would either be in a mental institution or jail. Only idiots keep provoking someone that's really angry, maybe even psychologically deranged, with a sharp stick. The following is Dave Stancliff's latest contribution posted on the Report article: Warmonger Writes About Peace.

Included below it is the unsolicited comment from a reader that offers some worthwhile perspective about Dave Stancliff's real intentions behind his Times-Standard newspaper “As It Stands” weekly column. [Picture source]



Dave said...

You amaze me Joe.

I write about a subject that has nothing to do with you, and you still attack me.

Remind me of the offer you made me to meet. I don't recall that one. I know I made you an offer, but you refused.

All I see is an angry man who accuses me of everything in the book while reviling me, saying lies about me,and who spends his time blogging about me like some kind of crazed fan from hell.

It's obvious you have some major anger issues in life Joe, and for whatever reason you've chosen to devote your days and nights to attacking me.

I really feel sorry for you. I personally couldn't carry around as much paranoia and hate as you do. It's going to catch up to you.

Have a great day Joe and don't forget to say something nasty about me.

July 3, 2010 8:40 AM

kenny's sideshow said...

Dave, I have no dog in this little fight between you and Joe but I was intrigued by your article title so I went and read it.

It was a convoluted mess, either by ignorance or design.

Taking the false flag of 9/11 and the subsequent manufactured Islamic enemies and mixing it with some history of the Crusades is BS.

Here's how not to coexist with others on the planet and create jihad in the locals as an excuse for never ending wars and profiteering:

Invade and occupy a country based on nothing but lies, genocide and displace the population, destroy the infrastructure and historical artifacts, steal the resources,use the controlled media to cheer lead the death and destruction,install puppet leaders 'friendly' to your agenda,maybe even stimulate the opium/heroin trade and make your bankers and buddies rich while the local population suffers, etc. etc.

Dave, you're a 'journalist.' You should know these simple things by now.

July 3, 2010 3:46 PM
[Emphasis added]
--Joe

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The Opinionator

If the Report only makes observations, why does it write about (so-called) opinions?

The fundamental purpose of this Report is to produce objective, non-personal observations. When it comes to “opinions” that's rather hard to do in a society of Opinionators that are unable to distinguish between unsubstantiated conjecture and who they are as a person. By the way, the definition of an Opinionator is: “n. An opinionated person; one given to conjecture.” The definition of “conjecture” is: “n. The formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof; guess; speculation.”

We can easily define an Opinionator as someone that is without any substantive legitimacy. They are essentially psychotic; devoid of reality. As such they are deluded and prone to hallucinations. Put another way they are or become their own dreams; unable to distinguish between the dark from the light. Unfortunately, Opinionators are one of the main tools or means used for dispensing propaganda in the main stream media today. While these 'opinion's may contain some facts or be loosely based upon a fact, these Opinionator's unsubstantiated conjecture is all about disrespecting the reader. The Opinionator's main goal is to get the reader to agree that he or she speaks truth, not guess-work crap, thus becoming legitimate individuals. Respect for the reader requires substantiated facts in sufficient proportion pro and con that allows the reader to decide for themselves what is and what is not.

That is why the Report looks at 'opinion' pieces and sometimes makes observations, to expose the fraud, misinformation, conjecture and mostly outright lies. Opinionators are revealed for what they are, illegitimate and mostly purveyors of knee-jerk stupidity. Consequently, they are essentially irrelevant to this Report. Whatever good service they provide is questionable and probably should be considered as such. Locally, when it comes to serious blogs of substance, there are a few. There are even some serious commentators.

What prompted this article was listening to the interview of Johan Galtung on the War in Afghanistan and How to Get Out with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now today. He said: “I Love the US Republic, and I Hate the US Empire – drawing a clear distinction between the two that's well worth considering. In fact his whole interview is a thinking person's gift. Drawing the distinction between the Republic and Empire, he says America will only become whole when it gets rid of its “exceptionalism” and getting away from the belief that the US has a “separate mandate from God, even a mandate to kill.” This interview was based on his latest book called The Fall of the US Empire, "in which he predicts the collapse of the American empire in ten years, by 2020."

To start he said:
Now let’s look at it from a Washington point of view: pursuing a victory which will never happen. I’ll say why: 1.56 billion Muslims are dedicated to the idea of defending Islam when trampled upon. Some of them are traveling to Afghanistan. Some of them are doing it somewhere else in other ways. Those ways can become quite disagreeable, as you know.

Point two, there is no capitulation in Islam to infidels. It doesn’t exist. To fight against Christians and Jews—you take the mini-empire of Israel, the regional empire—is not an invitation to a violent confrontation that will end with a capitulation. In other words, the time perspective of the Muslim community is unlimited. I don’t think the time perspective of Washington is unlimited. So you can say, of course, who has the longer time perspective will win. (Emphasis added)
Commenting on how Israel, the mini-empire fits into this is an interesting read from by Alexander Cockburn on Jun 11th, 2010, is the “Pariah Nation” in The AVA. He concludes with the following quote for an Israeli Journalist Gordon Levy that sounds like Levy is talking about America:

Israel is plunging into deeper darkness. As the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy recently told one interviewer: “In the last year there have been real cracks in the democratic system of Israel.… It’s systematic — it’s not here and there. Things are becoming much harder.” And Levy also wrote in Ha’aretz, “When Israel closes its gates to anyone who doesn’t fall in line with our official positions, we are quickly becoming similar to North Korea. When right-wing parties increase their number of anti-democratic bills, and from all sides there are calls to make certain groups illegal, we must worry, of course. But when all this is engulfed in silence, and when even academia is increasingly falling in line with dangerous and dark views… the situation is apparently far beyond desperate.”
Then there is Glenn Greenwalds: “The media's understanding of its role” published Tuesday, June 15, 2010, in Salon.com. He concludes by saying:

“UPDATE II: One other point: what Axelrod tried to explain to Gregory about accountability -- "trust" and attempts to understand someone's character are irrelevant; what matters is evidence and "mak[ing] sure that they do what they're required to do" -- is also a good guide for how citizens should think of political leaders, even (especially) their favorite ones.”
Did you decide for yourself?                                                                                          -- [source]
--Joe